Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL

[King's Consent signified]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Class Z Reserve

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he has made or contemplates for setting up a committee or committees to deal with applications for deferment or exemptions from call-up by Z reservists.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my statement during the Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Training Bill on 26th February, 1951.

Sir T. Moore: While bearing that in mind, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is quite a lot of doubt—widespread doubt, and even dissatisfaction—about some of the discrimination in the call-up as it is exercised at present? Does he think that the arrangements he has made are adequate?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, I have no doubt that they will be adequate.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many communications have already been addressed to him about Z Reserve problems?

Mr. Stewart: Not without notice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances will Z reservists 40 years of

age or over be recalled for training this summer.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War why certain men over 40 years of age, demobilised prior to 1946 and without specialist qualifications, are being recalled as Class Z reservists.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War how far the shortage of Royal Army Service Corps drivers is so acute as to necessitate the recall in this category of Class Z reservists aged over 40.

Mr. M. Stewart: The units selected to train reservists this year will represent only a small proportion of the units which would be mobilised in an emergency. In selecting reservists for the units required in an emergency, the general principle of "last out, first back" has been applied. This has involved using the reservist's age and service group, and although this reflects accurately the date of his release, it does not, because of the Service element, bear any close relationship to his age. Moreover, there are certain arms and trades where the needs of mobilisation demand the recall of most, if not all, reservists trained in those duties.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But does the Under-Secretary recall that, on 18th September last, his right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour made a statement to the effect that Z reservists of 40 years of age and upwards were free to join Civil Defence, and does it not make nonsense of all those arrangements to call up for further training men several years above that age?

Mr. Stewart: If for the reason described by the hon. Member, or for any other reason, a man has good ground why he should not be called up, there is machinery for making representations.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the Under-Secretary realise that large numbers of men between the ages of 40 and 44, who are totally without specialist qualifications, and who were demobilised before 1946—such as batmen, orderlies, clerks and drivers—are now being recalled to the Colours? Are there not hundreds of thousands of younger men who, on the principle of "last out, first in," ought to be recalled first?

Mr. Stewart: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of specialist qualifications, he must remember that if a unit is to be made up it must contain men trained in certain duties. A man may be trained in certain duties without having what could reasonably be described as specialist qualifications.

Lieut.-Colonel Upton: Can my hon. Friend say why it is that age seems to be completely disregarded in the call-up of so many of these non-specialists? Is he aware that the information that the release number over-rides all considerations of age comes as a bit of a bombshell to those of us who are trying to understand the system which has been followed?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the relation between age and age service groups is well enough understood. Age is only one factor in determining a man's age and service group.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: How will this rule be applied in cases of men who are not 45 when they receive their call-up papers, but who are over 45 on the date at which they have to join up?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman has details of cases of that kind, perhaps he would bring them to my notice.

Mr. Gibson: Will my hon. Friend look into cases of men who are over 40 and who are engaged on highly skilled armaments work, such as tool making? I have in mind a man who is over 43 years of age. Surely this matter ought to be looked into with a view to considering whether men of that type cannot be more effectively used in industry?

Mr. Stewart: I endeavour to look into all cases which hon. Members send to me. I understand that the question of the value of the man's civilian work had already been considered by the Ministry of Labour before the call-up notices were issued.

Mr. Gibson: But why take tool makers?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that it is not only a case of individual hardship to the men concerned, but a question of public policy affecting Civil Defence recruitment, and will he consult with the Minister of

Labour in order to bring out an up-to-date and less conflicting statement?

Mr. Stewart: I will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement showing how many Class Z reservists to whom notices of recall for training have been, or are to be, sent, had served one, two, three, four, five or six years before VJ Day.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Class Z reservists, to whom calling-up papers have been sent, were under 35 years of age; how many were between 35 and 40 years of age; and how many were over 40 years of age.

Mr. M. Stewart: This information is not readily available.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister recall that, in announcing the recall scheme on 29th January, the First Lord of the Treasury said:
… it may be that there are key men in certain places who will be required, and who have actually served."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th January, 1951: Vol. 483. c. 592.]
Is he aware that the recall of large numbers of men with five or six years' experience of war service, who are getting on in years but who have no specialist qualification of any kind, is causing a rising tide of indignation throughout the country?

Mr. Mallalieu: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a strong impression in the country that far too large a proportion of older men are being called up, and would it not therefore be a good thing to publish the facts, so that we can see exactly what the position is?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly agree that it will be desirable to have this information, but I am reluctant, at a time when the primary job of the record officers must be to see that the scheme is working smoothly, to impose this burden on them immediately. I think it might be desirable at a later stage to obtain this information.

Mr. Pickthorn: Would it be administratively very difficult to find out how many individual cases of questioning the notice of call-up have occurred up to date?

Mr. Stewart: No, that would not be difficult.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In view of the statement of the Minister of Labour about recruitment for Civil Defence, did the hon. Gentleman's previous reply mean that if they volunteered for Civil Defence they would be absolved from call-up, if over the age of 40?

Mr. Stewart: No, not necessarily.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the records of all men called up since 1945 have been sufficiently examined, and that, notwithstanding that fact, he still cannot find the specialists required?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. Sir. We have carried out the procedure which I outlined to the House on an earlier occasion.

Sir Ralph Glyn: if a man over 40 goes to the local employment exchange can he have his case specially considered?

Mr. Stewart: It is open to any man of any age, for the reasons that have been stated in the letter sent to him with the warning notice, to have his case considered.

Civil Defence

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement as to the arrangements which have been made for military mobile columns to act with the Civil Defence organisation.

Mr. M. Stewart: Subject to its operational commitments, the Army has undertaken to provide support to the Civil Defence organisation if and when conditions after heavy air attack are such that the Civil Defence authorities are unable to restore the situation with their own resources.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In view of the probable preoccupation of the Regular Army with other duties, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that a mobile column of the Home Guard would fulfil these functions more adequately?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, that is a possibility, and it is one of the things we are considering.

Troops, Korea

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for War why no boots of Finnish pattern designed for use in the snow, were included in the supplies of winter clothing for the 27th Brigade when these supplies arrived in Korea on 3rd and 8th November, respectively.

Mr. M. Stewart: As the hon. Member was informed on 27th February, these boots were, on the contrary, included in the supplies of winter clothing which arrived in Korea on 3rd and 8th November. Moreover, these boots were reported to be in use by the 27th Brigade on 20th November.

Major Tufton Beamish: Is the hon. Member aware that boots being used both by the 27th and the 29th Brigades have proved totally unsuitable during the winter; and in view of that will he say why is it not to be until next autumn that they are to be replaced?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member that the boots have proved to be totally unsuitable.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Is the hon. Member aware that according to my information, which comes directly from the Brigade concerned, these boots had not reached the forward troops as late as 12th January of this year, and that as a result of that much unnecessary suffering and hardship has been caused to our troops? Does he realise that it is his responsibility to see that these boots arrive, and will he please take a personal interest in the matter forthwith?

Mr. Stewart: This is a matter in which my right hon. Friend and I have taken considerable interest. The information given by the hon. Member is at variance with our information. I think that this is not the first time the hon. Member has mentioned having this information, and we should be very glad if he would make it available to us so that we can give it full consideration.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that it took from 8th November until 22nd November for these boots to get from wherever they were unloaded to the forward troops?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I mentioned the date 20th November, because there


was, as my right hon. Friend mentioned to the House, a Press report on that date mentioning that they were already in use by that date.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order. I personally showed, Sir, the letter which gave this information——

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of recent broadcasts on Peking Radio and other messages identifying a number of British Service men, formerly listed as missing but now reported to be prisoners in Chinese or North Korean hands, he will renew his efforts to open official channels of communication on the subject of prisoners of war; whether he accepts officially the evidence provided by such broadcasts; and if he will state the practice in regard to pay, allowances and personal effects in such cases.

Mr. Nigel Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War how far any channels exist by which regular information is obtained from the North Korean and Chinese authorities as to the identification of British personnel who fall into their hands.

Mr. M. Stewart: I regret that it has not yet been possible to secure any official notifications in regard to British Forces taken prisoner in Korea. Efforts to open official channels of communication are proceeding. Information which has so far been received about the identity of British Army personnel is not regarded as official. In such cases the individual is regarded as "missing, believed prisoner-of-war." Pay is credited to his account for four weeks from the end of the week in which his dependants are notified that he is missing. His dependants continue to receive the marriage allowance and/or allotments in issue to them for a period which is at present limited to 52 weeks from the date on which they are notified of the casualty, should the soldier remain missing for, so long. The personal effects of officers believed to be prisoners-of-war may be handed over, on the authority of the War Office, to next-of-kin or other responsible persons who have made application for them. In the case of other ranks, the

personal effects are at present held by the War Department pending confirmation that the soldiers are prisoners-of-war.

Officers (Green Berets)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War why green berets, where these are regimental dress, will not be issued free on loan to officers who are recalled for training and do not provide their own uniform.

Mr. M. Stewart: In these cases green berets will be provided so far as they are available.

Mr. Low: Why should they not be provided to all who want them, in exactly the same way as blue berets or khaki berets are provided?

Mr. Stewart: We shall not be able to do that in every case.

Mr. Low: Is not that discrimination against the Rifle Regiments? Why should not a full supply of green berets be available in the same way as blue or khaki?

T.A. Volunteers (Holidays)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps were taken to ascertain the views of Territorial Army authorities on the subject of the guarantee by employers of holidays in addition to time spent at camp.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement during the debate on Army Estimates on 8th March.

Mr. Harvey: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that his advisers have been rather more concerned with the effect on industry than upon the volunteers, and will he now take a greater cross-section of opinion on this matter? Will he also encourage employers to give this guarantee to volunteers so long as they are training Z men.

Mr. Stewart: We have been primarily concerned with the attitude of the Territorial Army itself, although the attitude of employers is also important, but we are making further inquiries to make sure that we do get a representative opinion.

Warlike Stores (Sale)

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give a list of warlike stores sold, or to be sold, by his Department in the current financial year, and of warlike stores which it is estimated in Vote 7 (2), will be sold in the year 1951–52.

Mr. M. Stewart: In both these years the main items among the warlike stores sold or likely to be sold consist of artillery components and small arms ammunition, vehicle spares and electrical and wireless equipment.

Mr. Low: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent these important items of military equipment are sold to Governments outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

Mr. Stewart: I should not like to answer that question off-hand. The bulk of these stores go to countries with whom we have treaty or other commitments for maintenance.

Local Overseas Allowance

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War why, in view of the fact that Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' prices in Korea are fixed on the same basis as those in Hong Kong, the same local overseas allowance is not paid to those serving in Korea as to those stationed in Hong Kong.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will grant an additional 5s. a day Korea allowance for all troops fighting in Korea.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if, in view of the assurances contained in his letter of 8th December, 1950, to the hon. Member for Maldon, that the question of a local overseas allowance for troops in Korea would be kept under review, and that such an allowance would be introduced if at any time the prices of items on which troops usually spend money were found to warrant it, he will now state whether this matter has now been reviewed; and with what result;
(2) if he will give an assurance that any local overseas allowance granted to troops in Korea will be retrospective to the date at which the items whose prices warrant such an allowance became available for purchase.

Mr. M. Stewart: The purpose of local overseas allowance is to meet the additional cost of living in overseas stations as compared with the United Kingdom, and N.A.A.F.I. prices are only one of many factors involved. My right hon. Friend is satisfied, as he has previously informed the House, that the Commander in Korea will submit recommendations for an overseas allowance should he consider it necessary. The extent to which any allowances granted should be retrospective will be considered if and when such recommendations are received.

Mr. Low: Is not the Commander in Korea rather busy with other matters, and ought not the War Office to see that people who are fighting in those difficult conditions are given the allowance when the N.A.A.F.I. prices are so high, as is admitted? Should not the Government see that the onus is on the War Office to give the proper allowance, instead of putting the onus on those who are fighting?

Mr. Stewart: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, it is normally the concern of the Commander to make representations on a matter like this. We shall, of course, take considerable notice of the opinions expressed in the House. It is true that N.A.A.F.I. prices for some commodities are high, but the House has been provided with a list of the goods as a whole, and the prices are lower in other respects; nor is this the only factor affecting the cost of living.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the phrase from the Secretary of State's letter, quoted in Question No. 21, when my hon. Friend says that N.A.A.F.I. prices are only one of the factors taken into consideration, can he say what other things it is possible for the troops in Korea to spend their money on?

Mr. Stewart: It is not the purpose of a local overseas allowance to compensate for amenities that cannot be obtained. It is true that there are certain amenities that can be obtained in Hong Kong which affect the cost of living there and which do not enter into the argument in Korea.

Major Beamish: Is it not an absurd state of affairs that a man fighting in Korea, in most unpleasant conditions, should draw less in pay and allowances than equivalent ranks who are in the


safety of Hong Kong? Is it impossible for the Government to take an intelligent view of this matter?

Mr. Stewart: The view that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has advanced is something very different and contrary to all previous practice. The local overseas allowance is related to the cost of living in the area and not to the nature of operations.

Mr. Cuthbert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these Questions refer particularly to the troops who were sent from Hong Kong, in August, to Korea? I understand that the allowance was given not only as a cost of living allowance, but to supplement the pay of the officers or men who had their wives out there. Their wives are still in Hong Kong, and the men are in Korea and they have suffered this cash loss.

Mr. Stewart: The arrangement made after the men left Hong Kong was only a brief, temporary arrangement. What we are now doing is in accordance with the recognised practice but, of course, in the face of any compelling evidence, we shall certainly consider the granting of a local overseas allowance.

Mr. Molson: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the fewer the amenities that there are to be purchased the smaller the overseas allowance will be?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. It means that a local overseas allowance has relation to the cost of living in the theatre concerned.

Mr. Driberg: Although my hon. Friend says that the Commander on the spot will make a recommendation if he thinks it necessary, can my hon. Friend not take the initiative of consulting the Commander and ask him if he thinks it would not be desirable?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I think that could be done.

Mr. Low: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether, after this Question was first raised, I think on 27th February, he or his right hon. Friend did or did not get into touch with the Commander in Korea?

Mr. Stewart: I understand that my right hon. Friend did that.

Mr. Low: What happened?

Brigadier Clarke: When the hon. Gentleman has finished considering this matter, will he back-date the allowance so that the men will not suffer?

Mr. Stewart: I have already referred to that point in my original answer.

Troops, Malaya (Age)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reasons the minimum age of soldiers in Malaya is nine months less than that of soldiers in Korea.

Mr. M. Stewart: The requirement that soldiers must be 19 years of age before embarking for Korea derives from the practice general in the last war that soldiers should not be posted to a theatre of war before reaching that age. Service in Malaya, in operations in aid of the civil power, involves danger and hardship, but is not service against a fully constituted and equipped enemy. It is essential to ensure that troops sent to Malaya are adequately trained, but it is not considered appropriate that the age limit should be raised to 19.

Mr. Keeling: Can we assume that, in practice, these very young men in Malaya will not be sent on operations?

Mr. Stewart: There is already a minimum age at which a man may be sent to the Far East. My right hon. Friend has already explained to the House the steps taken for training, both before he goes and after he arrives there, and I do not think that I can add to that.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that his right hon. Friend told us on a previous occasion that he would review this period of training, especially before sending troops to Malaya? Has that review already taken place, and, if so, can he give us any information?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot add anything at present.

Mr. Butler: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to give us a more useful answer?

Mr. Stewart: Very shortly, I hope.

Brigadier Thorp: May we take it that the fact that Malaya is not considered an active area of operations does not affect pensions being paid following fatal casualties?

Mr. Stewart: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to study the actual words I used about operations in Malaya. No one has questioned the serious nature of the operations there, but the phrase I used was to the effect that it is not a case of operations against a fully constituted and equipped enemy.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman amplify his statement in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp)? Will pensions be paid to the relatives of men killed in Malaya as they are in the case of men killed in Korea? What is the subtle difference between being killed in Malaya and being killed in Korea?

Mr. Speaker: We seem to be getting on to pensions, whereas the Question asked was about the minimum age, which seems to be rather different.

Home Guard

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will establish forthwith county weapon cadres for training Home Guards to be recruited in the event of a national emergency.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend during the debate on the Army Estimates on 8th March.

Mr. Nabarro: While realising the purport of that statement, may I ask the Under-Secretary if he will reconsider the matter, in view of the number of highly qualified ex-officers and warrant officers who are available at once for county weapon cadres without any drain at all on equipment available at the moment?

Mr. Stewart: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

Overseas Units (Fighting Efficiency)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that the fighting efficiency of units overseas, or expected to proceed shortly overseas, will not be reduced by

the withdrawal of instructors or other non-commissioned officers who, through previous experience as miners, are entitled to claim to be returned to industry.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers have discretionary powers to release or retain in the Army ex-miners who are eligible and have indicated a willingness to return to the mines.

Mr. M. Stewart: Soldiers may not be released in order to return to the mines unless they are below the rank of acting sergeant and last enlisted from civil life after 1st January, 1949. I am satisfied that their withdrawal is not likely to affect the fighting efficiency of units overseas or about to proceed overseas. Commanding officers have no discretionary powers in this matter provided the soldier fulfils the conditions which have been laid down.

Mr. Vane: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give the assurance asked for in the Question? Will he confirm that senior n.c.o.s can be withdrawn from units in certain theatres overseas, and from units at home due shortly to proceed overseas, under his present scheme?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I have just told the hon. Member that soldiers cannot be released to return to the mines unless they are below the rank of acting sergeant.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the vital importance of getting every ton of coal that we possibly can, will my hon. Friend undertake to review the matter in order to release every miner in the Forces?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In view of the fact that the total numbers involved here are not large, would not the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Is it not easier to produce sergeants than to produce miners?

Mr. Stewart: The scheme has been examined both with regard to the needs of the Army and the needs of the mining industry, and we have endeavoured to reach a solution that meets them both, as far as that is possible.

Mr. H. Hynd: May we take it from the information which my hon. Friend has given that ex-miners are not to be released if they are not below the rank of acting sergeant, if they are serving in Korea, if they are National Service men,


if they are Regular reservists or if they did not enlist after a certain date? In that case, how many are left? Why has the statement previously made been scaled down in this way?

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a fact that inquiries have elicited the fact that the great majority of miners in the Forces would far rather remain where they are than go back to the mines under nationalisation?

Footwear Repair Prices

Mr. Robert Carr: asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to introduce a new schedule of prices for Service footwear repairs.

Mr. M. Stewart: It is intended to bring the present arrangements for the repair of Service footwear to an end on 31st May next. As from that date the work will be let as the result of competitive tenders. Unless there are marked changes in costs in the meantime, the present schedule of prices will apply until that date.

Territorial Officers (Bounty)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to extend the bounty of £4 to be paid to Class Z officers for attending camp to Territorial officers; and whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision not to require employers to give the same holiday facilities to Territorials as are to be laid down for reservists.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) on 6th February, 1951, and to my statement during the debate on the Army Estimates on 8th March.

Mr. Alport: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this failure to give T.A. officers and other ranks equal treatment with the reservists is causing widespread dissatisfaction? Is it not time that the Government stopped exploiting the voluntary spirit of the Territorial Army?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member will look at the statements I have made, he will see that we are now having that matter examined.

African Colonial Units

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make regarding the Government's policy for the organisation and employment of African colonial units in the event of emergency.

Mr. M. Stewart: The importance of the use of African colonial units in an emergency is fully recognised, and plans to this end are now being examined.

Mr. Alport: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Commander-in-Chief has recently had to deny rumours that African troops were being used exclusively in pioneer and labour units, and does not he agree that it is very important that the Government should get out a clear statement on this matter at an early date in order to check any decrease in the morale of the African units?

Mr. Stewart: Meanwhile, of course, it is important that rumours of that kind should not be spread.

War Graves Commission (Staff)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the basis of recruitment for the War Graves Commission: and how many recruits have been added to headquarters staff since 1948.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Imperial War Graves Commission obtain staff through the Ministry of Labour and National Service, through appointments boards and by advertisements in the Press. Since 1st April, 1948, the number of staff at the Commission's headquarters has risen from 302 to 318.

Mr. Haire: Would my hon. Friend consider introducing a competitive examination as in other branches of the Civil Service, to eliminate any possible charge of nepotism or jobs for the old school boys?

Mr. Stewart: I have no reason to believe that there is any justification for that statement.

Damaged Hotel, Kent (Compensation)

Mr. Steward: asked the Secretary of State for War why his Department have refused to pay more than £3,000 as compensation for the restoration of the


Excelsior Hotel, St. Margaret's Bay, Kent, which was requisitioned in 1940 and subsequently totally destroyed in house to house fighting exercises, in view of the fact that the estimated cost of restoring it to its original condition amounts to £8,500.

Mr. M. Stewart: The compensation payable by the War Department is restricted by statute to the total value of the property at the time of requisition in April, 1942. This value, assessed on the most generous basis possible, was £3,000.

Mr. Steward: Does the Minister really believe that the owner of this hotel is receiving fair treatment? First he is deprived of his livelihood by the War Office, and now he is refused reinstatement. Would the Minister be kind enough to say what action could be taken to give this man justice?

Mr. Stewart: This hotel was already damaged at the time it was taken over by the War Office. The compensation which has been awarded is the maximum provided by statute. I do not think there is any ground for supposing that justice has been denied him.

Mr. Low: Is it not this sort of treatment which makes the War Office so unpopular in the country? Could not the Minister see that this treatment is not tolerated?

Mr. Stewart: No case has been made out that there has been any unfair treatment in this instance. We compensated for the value of the property at the time it was requisitioned. Do hon. Members suggest that we should have paid more than it was worth at the time of requisitioning?

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the Minister enlighten the House as to the damage previously sustained by this building?

Mr. Stewart: It was damaged by enemy action.

War Office Staff

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War how many male non-commissioned officers and how many warrant officers are at present in the War Office on typing and other clerical duties; and how many hours a

day have they spent on military training during the past six months.

Mr. M. Stewart: One hundred and fifteen warrant officers are employed in supervisory and other clerical duties, and 457 non - commissioned officers are employed on similar duties and on typing. No fixed daily period of military training is laid down, but, in order to meet the requirements for promotion to each rank, courses are run for the military personnel in the War Office to enable them to attain the required standards in military subjects.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider this is rather an alarming number in view of the shortage of fighting material, and is he taking any steps to reduce the number?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think that the number is alarming. We have to have a certain number of soldiers performing these duties, partly because they will be required to be familiar with them in time of war, and partly because they are sometimes required to work irregular hours.

Mr. Moody: Is my hon. Friend aware that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite won their medals, fame and glory for doing much less in the War Office than the typists there are doing now?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the Minister assure us that this staff at the War Office is part of the Royal Army Service Corps, and that, therefore, it is part of their training; or are they men seconded from fighting units?

Mr. Stewart: I could not say, without notice, what arms they are in.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an estimate of the effect which the replacement of non-commissioned officers by civil servants of equivalent grade would have on the finances of his Department.

Mr. M. Stewart: The cost of the civil servants would be much the same as that of the non-commissioned officers they replaced, but would, of course, constitute an extra charge since the non-commissioned officers would, in present circumstances, be employed elsewhere, and not discharged. Normally, however, when a


post is filled by a soldier, it is because, for one reason or another, it is not suitable for a civilian.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: As the matter is really more a problem of manpower than of finance at the moment, would it not be better to replace some of these n.c.o's. by civil servants, so as to free them for the fighting units?

Mr. Stewart: No, for the reason I gave the hon. and gallant Member in the previous Question.

Mr. H. Hynd: Could not female labour be used?

Pension Scheme (Review)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider reviewing the regulation which makes the widow of an officer or man ineligible for pension when there is 25 years' disparity of age between them.

Mr. M. Stewart: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 29th March, 1950, a scheme of family pensions on a contributory basis is under consideration. When a decision is reached, it is intended to review the existing non-contributory pension scheme for widows of officers and warrant officers, Class I, whose deaths are not due to service. That review will cover the rule referred to by the hon. Member. The rule does not apply to awards in respect of deaths due to service.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the case, of which, no doubt, he is fully aware, of the widow of an officer who served for 40 years in all and who was decorated with the M.V.O., who was married to him for 25 years and had five children, and who, when this officer died, was left without any pension, is a very bad case of hardship, and that he has a responsibility for making an award to the widow?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that this is in many ways an unsatisfactory rule. As I have said, it will be reviewed as part of the plan for a contributory pension scheme.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: But will the hon. Gentleman do something for this lady?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Expenditure and Taxation

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether, in view of the growing burden of local government expenditure, much of which is attributable to causes beyond the control of the local authorities themselves, he will now take steps to initiate a comprehensive inquiry into local government expenditure and local taxation.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): Under the Local Government Act of 19,48 an investigation is due in 1953.

Mr. Hutchinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a more comprehensive investigation than that under the Act to which he has referred should be undertaken in order to allay public anxiety about the rising cost of local government expenditure?

Mr. Dalton: I think we had better wait until we have the new valuation. That will enable us to judge much better than we can now.

Bermondsey Council (Auditor's Report)

Mr. Iain MacLeod: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Bermondsey Borough Council on 22nd November, 1950, in relation to the district auditor's report which criticised certain journeys in 1948 undertaken by the Mayor of Bermondsey at that time to the New Cross speedway track in the mayoral car; and, in view of aspersions cast in the Council's recommendation upon the integrity of the auditor, what action he proposes to take to investigate this accusation.

Mr. Dalton: The district auditor in his report commented on the use of the mayoral car as recorded by the log book. The Council in their observations upon the report doubt the veracity of the record, but have given instructions for future procedure. I do not propose to take any further action.

Mr. MacLeod: Is the Minister aware that the Council's recommendation included the words that the auditor's report lacked both intelligence and integrity?


Does he not think that that accusation should be probed for the protection of the Council if it be true and for the protection of the district auditor if it be not true?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think so. I repeat that I think no further action is called for by me at this stage. If there is an appeal against any district auditor's report then I have jurisdiction. If there is not an appeal I let it be.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the whole question of district auditing there has been discussion by Metropolitan boroughs, including Conservative councils, on the whole method of auditing but that there has been no intention at any time, in this case, of questioning the integrity of the officer himself?

Mr. Dalton: That is what I understand. As I said, it was the veracity of the record of the log book that was doubted.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is there any time limit within which an appeal has to be lodged? If there is a limit is there still time to lodge an appeal?

Mr. Powell: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that he condones the use of ratepayers' money for repeated visits to a speedway track?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member is to understand from my reply what is in my reply.

Mr. MacLeod: In view of the evident reluctance of the Minister to protect district auditors, or have the matter discussed, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Hetton Council (Auditor's Report)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning for what reasons 19 members and two officials of the Hetton Urban District Council have been asked to refund sums claimed in respect of expenses for attendance at conferences, after criticism by the district auditor; and what was the total sum involved.

Mr. Dalton: Because the district auditor held that more had been claimed than

was reasonably necessary. The sum involved was £36 6s. 10d. which has been repaid.

Mr. Vane: Can the Minister say under what particular headings these sums were reclaimed? Was it in respect of wrong claims for loss of earnings or for subsistence at too high a rate? What was the particular form of the claim?

Mr. Dalton: There were a number of points raised and the total sum, as the hon. Gentleman will see, amounted to £36 among 21 persons, which is not very much per head.

Mr. Vane: Can the Minister not give a better reply than simply to say there were a number of points raised? Since this was some form of dishonesty can he say exactly what it was?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman has no right to assume that there was any form of dishonesty.

Mr. Jennings: Does the Minister not agree that the whole matter needs reviewing? It is creating a bad atmosphere in the country.

Mr. Dalton: The bad atmosphere is not created by me.

Mr. Vane: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's highly unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Standards

Mr. Lionel Heald: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he and his officers have studied the exhibition of designs for houses to cost £1,000 or less, recently organised at the County Hall with the approval and assistance of the London County Council; and whether his Department is now prepared to accept the principle that building standards should be made sufficiently flexible to allow local authorities to provide good houses in larger numbers and at rents that council tenants can afford.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will instruct his expert advisers to examine the designs of the £1,000 houses, now on exhibition in the Conference Hall of the London County Council; and, if possible,


get suggestions from these designs, or other sources, for modifications in present Government housing regulations, compliance with which is making houses cost more than many can afford to pay.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will recommend to all local authorities the successful design submitted to the Housing Exhibition staged at County Hall, with a view to obtaining more houses from the same outlay of materials and lowering council house rents by reducing the cost of the average three bedroomed house from the present £1,400 to £950 each.

Mr. Dalton: I have inspected these plans, and so have my advisers. Subject to local bylaws, it is open to private builders to adopt any of these plans for houses built under licence. I intend shortly to issue a circular to local authorities on the design of council houses.

Mr. Heald: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the former Minister of Health was far too inflexible in these matters?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I should not think so.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the regulations and the conditions which are insisted upon cause houses to be far too expensive? They do not have to be so expensive. If he will look into the matter thoroughly with an expert who knows the game he will find that the matter can be put right very easily.

Mr. Nicholls: Is the Minister aware of the grave urgency of this problem owing to the fact that many people now on the housing lists are refusing their turn because of the high rents? If this scheme is accepted, we can get more houses from a given amount of material and, very likely, at lower rents.

Mr. Dalton: I am taking all these matters into account.

Mr. Gibson: In considering the issue of the circular to which he has referred, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will be no attempt to reduce housing standards?

Mr. Dalton: I am bearing that in mind. My hon. Friend and I have had a number of talks about the matter, as I have had with other hon. Members. He is well aware that I do not want to see any lowering of essential standards.

Building Licences

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he is aware of the hardship which is caused to persons who, by reason of their employment, must change their town or work in one town and live in another thus being regarded by the local authority as not qualifying for either a council house or to receive a private building licence out of their allocation; and whether he will consider making provision in proper cases for building licences to be granted in excess of the present percentage to-persons falling within this category.

Mr. Dalton: As regards local authority houses, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 6th February. As regards licences, these can be transferred by agreement between local authorities, and additional licences can be granted to suitable cases.

Mr. Oliver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is almost impossible to get an exchange of licences? In cases where exchanges have operated they have been between two persons who desired to change over their town of residence, and such persons are not easy to find.

Mr. Dalton: Obviously, it would be difficult, but we do our best to encourage it.

Surrey

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he has considered the representations of the Surrey County Council, dated 8th February, 1951, urging allocation of a larger number of houses and greater provision for the granting of private building licences being made to local authorities; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning what reply he has sent to the Chairman of Surrey County Council's letter regarding distressing housing conditions in the county of Surrey.

Mr. Dalton: A reply was sent on 9th February promising to give consideration to the Council's resolution.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would also be willing to inform the House of the result of consideration of this immensely important matter?

Mr. Dalton: As I have already said, if any authority can show that they can beat their allocation I will carefully consider whether we can increase it. If the Surrey County Council can produce such evidence I will consider it. Where an authority can show a good case for the variation of the 1–5 ratio of private building to public building I will also consider that.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The reply to which the Minister refers was sent over a month ago. When does he think that a final answer will be sent?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he is aware that development charges are arrived at by a process of bargaining; that many people are unaware of the fact that the original assessment is open to reduction; that no uniform system appears to be in operation; and if he will take steps to ensure that everyone is equally treated in this matter.

Mr. Dalton: When a district valuer is asked to assess a development charge, he tells the applicant what assessment he proposes and invites him to call and discuss it.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware that in a recent case a development charge of £250 was announced which, on negotiation, was reduced to £100? If £250 was a wrong or unfair sum why was that original high development charge put forward in the first place?

Mr. Dalton: I should have thought that the person concerned would have been very glad rather than otherwise.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: This is only keeping several hon. Members from asking their Questions.

Mr. Harrison: On what grounds are these particular assessments made? What theory is the district valuer following?

Mr. Dalton: The basis of development charges is laid down in the Act. My hon. Friend will know that very well. The district valuer does his best and he invites the persons concerned to assist him by giving any evidence, if they have any, as to why the charge should be reduced, as in the case mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward).

Mr. Bossom: Could not the Minister see that the valuer decides the right value in the first place? It is all a try on?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Argentina (Sterling Balance)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was the Argentine sterling balance over here, for which a revaluation is now being demanded because of the pound's devaluation; and if he will make a statement on the position.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): I regret that I cannot disclose figures of the sterling balances of individual countries. The question of a revaluation payment will no doubt be discussed in the present negotiations with the Argentine Government, but I am unable at present to make any statement.

Mr. Osborne: Why cannot the Chancellor disclose the balance? Does the fact that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has been to Argentina sent as head of a trade mission mean that revaluation of these balances is considered of more importance than the obtaining of more meat?

Mr. Gaitskell: The answer to the latter question is, "No, Sir," and to the former, because it is the property of the other Government.

Bonus Issues

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has given to the Capital Issues Committee about proposals to capitalise reserves; why he refuses to disclose reasons


for decisions, either in general or in particular cases; and if he will now permit reserves to be converted into permanent capital without restriction.

Mr. Gaitskell: The instructions are those set out in a letter dated 13th December, 1949, to the Chairman of the Capital Issues Committee from my predecessor, who quoted it in reply to a question by Mr. Collins on 15th December, 1949. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c.295.] Permission to make bonus issues is withheld in cases which do not fall within the scope of these instructions; I am not prepared to permit such issues without restriction.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not the Chancellor actuated by political prejudice? As no real money is involved ought not companies to be encouraged to plough back profits when they have them?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no political motive here, but there is an inflationary danger.

Sir H. Williams: How does a bonus cause inflation, since it only involves a book entry?

Mr. Gaitskell: Because of benefits through increased dividends and possible capital appreciation to shareholders.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into these instructions, because many anomalous positions are arising and I suggest that the time has come when the instructions require drastic alteration?

Mr. Gaitskell: We keep a matter of this kind under continuous review.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that companies should be able to bring their issued capital into closer relation to their assets?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is an argument on that side, but there are also some powerful arguments the other way.

National Capital (Loss)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated total loss of national capital, including overseas investments, during the 1939–45 war; and how much has been regained,

excluding the $7,200,000,000 loans and gifts from Canada and America, since August, 1945.

Mr. Gaitskell: In table 12 of Cmd. 6707, the total loss of national capital during the last war was estimated very approximately at rather more than £7,000 million, or about a quarter of our prewar national wealth. Figures of domestic investment in this country and of the change in our external capital position since the war are shown in the National Income and the Balance of Payments White Papers. Apart from loans from Canada and U.S.A., which totalled £1,300 million, the external capital position has improved by some £750 million since the war. Gross domestic capital formation less sums allowed for depreciation amounts to about £5,000 million since the war. But no allowance is made for changes in the cost of capital equipment in computing this figure, which therefore cannot be properly compared with the war-time loss of capital.

Mr. Osborne: Allowing for the difference in replacement values, comparing pre-war with today, could the Chancellor say whether we have recaptured the national wealth which was lost during the war?

Mr. Gaitskell: From observations I would say that the total amount of physical capital available is greater than before the war, but it is very difficult to make the calculation on the basis of computation in accordance with changes in capital values.

Mr. Assheton: Does the figure of £7,000 million include war damage?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Assheton: In that case, how is it that the Chancellor told me the other day that he was unable to estimate the amount of war damage still outstanding?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not quite see the relevance of that question.

Mr. Assheton: May I explain? I wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to insert in his financial statement a figure showing how much the Government estimated they still owed on account of war damage payments to be made in the future.

Mr. Gaitskell: I will certainly look into that, but I cannot see that it is very relevant to the total loss of capital during the war.

Statutory Instruments (Explanatory Notes)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the explanatory notes to Statutory Instruments, 1951, Nos. 328, 329 and 330, do not conform with the requirements of Treasury Circular F. 18924, of 21st June, 1946, which laid down that such notes must not be argumentative, must not seek to explain or to justify policy and must not purport to construe the law; and if he will take steps to secure compliance.

Mr. Gaitskell: These notes were issued under the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies who agrees that they do not conform strictly to the terms of the Treasury circular to which the hon. Member refers. Steps are being taken to ensure that the instructions in the circular are fully observed.

Industrial Investment

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the capital investment in industry in Great Britain for the year 1949, expressed as a percentage of the national product; and how this compares with 1939.

Mr. Gaitskell: Gross investment in industry in Great Britain in 1949 was approximately 9 per cent. of the gross national product and total investment about 18 per cent. No reliable estimates are available for pre-war years, but the percentage in 1949 for investment in industry was probably higher than in 1939 and for total investment probably about the same.

Personal Export Scheme

Mr. Bowles: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it is estimated that the Exchequer has lost during the last three financial years through the operation of the personal export scheme.

Mr. Gaitskell: Goods are free of tax under the personal export scheme only if delivered direct to a ship or aircraft leaving this country. They are therefore virtually the same as exports and I doubt

if we can properly speak of tax relief upon them as a loss to the Exchequer.

Mr. Bowles: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that information and while I do not ask him to anticipate his Budget statement, may I ask him whether he recognises the very strong feeling which exists in the country among people who believe that those who are not resident here and are not liable for British taxation should no longer be exempt from this tax? As there is a prospect of increased taxation, will not my right hon. Friend consider stopping this scheme altogether, in view of the fact that it is paricularly irritating that those who were neutral in the last war are also taking advantage of it?

Mr. Gaitskell: The scheme is under review, but I should have thought it was important to try to encourage foreigners to buy things here.

Squadron Leader Burden: Is the Chancellor not aware of the fact that the personal export scheme is very valuable to this country and is likely to be still more valuable if the Festival is a success, as we all hope it will be? Will he do nothing whatever to impair its efficiency?

Civil Service (Equal Pay)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the application of equal pay for equal work to women in the Civil Service.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 23rd January, 1951.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the rate for the job is now paid in Government service over a very wide field, will the right hon. Gentleman remember the necessity for applying fair shares for all when the final decision is made?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will take everything into account.

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds it was decided to restrict the payment of the men's rate to women in the Civil Service so as to cover only one woman holding the senior position in a major Department while excluding a woman holding a


similar position in a Department not so graded; whether he is aware that this decision is regarded as unfair discrimination; and whether he will consider adopting the principle of equal pay so as to cover all women in Government service and not merely a favoured section.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot agree that this decision, the reasons for which I have explained to the hon. Lady, is regarded as unfair. As to the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my former answer on this subject.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling of anger among civil servants at the right hon. Gentleman's attitude against paying competent women civil servants the rate for the job, and will he please bear that in mind?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think the hon. Lady slightly exaggerates the feeling on this subject.

Polish Geese (Duty)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that Income Tax and Profits Tax are not chargeable on profits which accrue to the State, was the payment of £86,016 Import Duty paid into the Exchequer under a contract for Polish geese made in May, 1949.

Mr. Gaitskell: Chiefly because Import Duty is a cost which should be borne by a Government Department no less than by private importers and is not a profit which accrues in any event to the Exchequer.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Chancellor aware that the other day he told me that profits made by the Ministry of Food were not chargeable to Income Tax? In that case, why is this amount chargeable? Is he also aware that if the nationalised industries can trade without paying Income Tax it is very unfair on private traders?

Mr. Gaitskell: This Question is about Import Duty and the answer is that Import Duty should be paid by Government Departments so as not to be unfair to private traders.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY COMMITTEES

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will invite the International Materials Conference to set up a rubber commodity committee.

Mr. Gaitskell: A special inter-Governmental Conference met in London last month to review the present and prospective position of natural and synthetic rubber and to discuss various forms of international action which might be called for. The Conference has now adjourned for a short period, but is expected to meet again in a few weeks' time. My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that in the circumstances there would be no point in asking the International Materials Conference to set up a rubber commodity committee.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the unfortunate squabbles between the United States and Malayan tin producers in the absence of a tin commodity committee, will the right hon. Gentleman not urge the setting up of a rubber commodity committee in order to avoid the same sort of trouble in the future?

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Rubber Study Group, which has existed and worked satisfactorily for a good many years, already provides what is required in this matter?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think it is a question of our not tackling the rubber problem. The question is whether we should have yet another conference when we have one already in existence.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer through what agency the work of the International Commodity Committees is co-ordinated and related to the economic strategy of N.A.T.O.

Mr. Gaitskell: No formal machinery has so far been established to co-ordinate the work in the raw material field of the International Materials Conference and N.A.T.O. I am not sure that this will be necessary in view of the fact that many members of the Commodity Committees and also members of N.A.T.O. and informal arrangements for co-ordination can no doubt be made if required.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not desirable to have some agency which could, for example, balance our just demand for sulphur against the Americans' just demand for rubber and, as there are many redundant inter-Governmental committees, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a combined resources board, associated with N.A.T.O., in order to coordinate our economic strategy?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think we must avoid trying to do too much over-co-ordination.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the Chancellor agree that there are far too many committees, both at home and abroad, interfering with trade?

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY DOCUMENT

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that "Talking Points," February, 1951,en-titled"Danger Ahead—A Warning About Fuel, "issued by the Information Division of the Treasury, is not a politically impartial statement; and what steps are taken to prevent party propaganda being issued at the national expense by this Government Department.

Mr. Gaitskell: This document provides a factual account of the fuel shortage, the remedial measures taken, and the further economies required from industry and the public. It seems to me completely free from bias. Like all the material issued by the Division, it was prepared and scrutinised with great care to ensure impartiality. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library so that hon. Members may judge for themselves.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How does the Chancellor reconcile his statement that this document is free from bias with the fact that it treats the failure to accumulate stocks last autumn without mentioning at all Government directives on exports earlier in the year, and that it deals with the coal shortage by emphasising the increased demand since before the war without mentioning in a single place the failure by 25 million tons to produce as much as before the war? Is that impartial?

Mr. Gaitskell: I certainly think that the document is an impartial one and I would assure the House that it is very necessary that all these documents should

be impartial. We are entirely in agreement about that. I am also anxious to secure that there shall be no unfounded allegations that these documents are partial.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind examining the passage headed "Fewer Miners," where it is stated correctly that there were 20,000 fewer miners at the end of the year than at the beginning. It goes on to say:
It had been expected that this would happen,
whereas the National Coal Board stated that the expectation was that many fewer than that number would, in fact, have been lost to the industry.

Mr. Gaitskell: That seems to me to suggest that the document is completely impartial.

Mr. Donner: Is it impartial to publish selected facts?

Mr. Gaitskell: All documents contain selected facts.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make on Business?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. It is not expected that there will be time tomorrow to deal with more than the Committee stage of the Civil Supplementary Estimates for the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. The Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Food announced as third item tomorrow will therefore be debated first on Thursday on Report stage, followed by the other Estimates already announced for consideration on that day.

Mr. H. Hynd: Does that announcement mean that the House will not be expected to sit until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Ede: It has nothing to do with the time at which the House will rise. These Supplementary Estimates will be put under the Guillotine at 9.30 p.m. both tomorrow and Thursday, but tomorrow night there has been set down for consideration a Sheffield Corporation Bill, which may considerably cut into the time available for the House tomorrow.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: The House will remember that we left over from Thursday a matter which purported to be one of Privilege. I have examined the matter. Since then I have discovered that it was—unwittingly, I have no doubt—improperly raised, and further proceedings on the matter of Privilege must be out of order. The whole matter was discussed on Tuesday in the last leading article of the "Daily Worker." Therefore, if the matter should have been raised, then it should have been brought up at the first available opportunity; but it was not. Therefore, I cannot allow any further discussion on the matter, which was improperly—unwittingly, I admit tout, nevertheless, improperly—brought before the House, and the matter of Privilege cannot, so far as I aim concerned, be discussed.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is it in order for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) to make a personal statement?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have had, as I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, no notice at all of the statement you have made. [Laughter.]Hon. Members opposite may find that amusing, and I am making no complaint of it. I am mentioning the fact in order to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, that any submission I make to you about it has not had the advantage of being considered beforehand. I have to do the best I can in the circumstances. The submission I make to you is that this matter has already been raised and that you have already given your Ruling upon it. That Ruling was that you were not able to advise the House that no prima facie case had been made out. I submit to you, Sir, with respect, that that Ruling, having been given, cannot now be withdrawn, and that the matter is now in the possession of the House.
Furthermore, I submit to you that the doubt cast last Thursday upon the form of your Ruling was a doubt that was misconceived. The Ruling was given, certainly, in a negative form, but that negative form, I submit to you with respect, is the correct form. Matters of Privilege have to be dealt with by the

House in priority to all other business unless you, Sir, advise the House that no prima facie case has been made out.
Therefore, your Ruling last Thursday was not at all amenable to the kind of reflection or doubt that was cast upon it. It remains your Ruling, and upon that Ruling the House must proceed. Had it not been for the completely misconceived and, if I am right, quite improper doubt cast last time upon the terms of your Ruling, the Motion which I then made in the House would certainly not have been withdrawn; and even if I had wanted to withdraw it, I doubt whether I should have had the permission of the House for doing so.
In regard to my own action, and to the time at which it was taken, I brought the matter to the attention of you, Sir, and under your direction, to that of the House on the first occasion on which I had the opportunity of so doing. I was not influenced by—nor, until yesterday, did I have any knowledge that there had been—any newspaper which knew of the matter or which had commented upon the matter. [Laughter.]I really must apologise to the House. I really cannot keep up with the sense of humour of hon. Members opposite. I raised the matter without any knowledge, I repeat, that it had been raised in any newspaper at any time. I raised it upon the letter which I had personally received from the Rev. O. Fielding Clarke, which letter I presented for consideration, and which letter I handed in.
I would say with all respect, but with real conviction, that it is not now open to you, Sir, or to the House to do anything but proceed on the Motion which, as complainant, it is my duty to move in the House as soon as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks has had the opportunity, if he wishes to take one, of saying something about it. As soon as he has done that, then, I say, I have not merely the right but the duty, your Ruling being what it was, to move that Motion. As at present advised, that is what I propose to do.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see that. The matter has been introduced to the House improperly. Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not see how we can proceed with a matter which should not have been produced before the House.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect, I say that there is no ground whatever for saying that the matter ought not to be before the House. It was my duty to raise it. I did raise it. It was my duty to raise it at the first opportunity. I did raise it at the first opportunity which I had. You have given a Ruling, Sir, and once that Ruling has been given the matter is in the possession of the House, and I think, with great respect, that it is utterly wrong to say that it was improperly introduced——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has no right to say "utterly wrong." Really, he must contain himself. I have given this Ruling. I have thought the matter out very carefully, and it is now outside the scope of the House. It was improperly raised. It was not, therefore, properly a matter to be raised before the House. It was, I admit, improperly brought before the House quite unwittingly, but I do not think we ought to go on with it.

Mr. Paget: Would it not be a help to the House if we had an indication of what the first opportunity was. Here we have somebody who is aggrieved. He writes to a Member of Parliament. The Member of Parliament brings it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the moment he receives that letter. Does that cease to be the first opportunity merely because a newspaper of not very wide circulation and of not great reliability as to its facts happens to have mentioned it on a previous day? Really, to say that one must take everything mentioned in the "Daily Worker" as being true and that it is not the first opportunity because the "Daily Worker" has already mentioned it, does, in my very respectful submission, amount to a most extraordinary Ruling. Surely it is not for the "Daily Worker" to decide what is the procedure of this House?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can shorten matters this way, although I think I am really out of order because I said that the matter should not be discussed. But I shall be quite plain. I have looked at all the matter and I have considered the letter, and I have decided that there is no prima faciecase.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: When I have ruled that there is no prima faciecase, it cannot be raised again. That must end the matter.

Mr. Driberg: In that case, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, would you be kind enough to say what you propose to do about the matter raised yesterday, the matter of the B.B.C. and "Any Questions?"? Does that simply fall to the ground, since, if the matter did not exist at all, how could it be sub judice?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see what yesterday has to do with today. It has nothing to do with today.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I submit to you with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the House ought not to be in any different position from the position in which they were at the time that the matter was raised in this House last Thursday? Last Thursday you ruled that you were not prepared to say that there was not a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition withdrew an Amendment that the matter should be adjourned, and, following that, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was prepared to allow the matter to stand over for your consideration.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Fletcher: What I desire to submit to you as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the House now ought to consider the matter in the same light as that in which the House was prepared to consider it on Thursday last. On Thursday last nobody in the House had any idea whatever that this newspaper, the "Daily Worker," had referred to the subject the day before. Whether that reference in the "Daily Worker" was an accurate reference or not I do not know; but it seems to me that the crucial matter, the real test on the matter of Privilege, is whether or not the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. I would, with great respect, submit to you that, if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne states, as he did


on Thursday last and as he has repeated today, that he raised the matter at the earliest opportunity that he could, that ought to be conclusive on the question of raising it at the first opportunity; and that the rights of the hon. Member and the rights of the House ought not to be prejudiced merely because of the fact that some newspaper, which very few people read, has referred to it at an earlier date.

Mr. Churchill: Are we not right in understanding, Mr. Speaker, that you have given a definite Ruling now that there is not a prima faciecase for submission to the Committee of Privileges? You have given your Ruling. I thought that was the Ruling which you had just given. If so, does not that decide the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is under a misapprehension. My last statement had nothing to do with whether it was in the "Daily Worker" or not. I passed that over. But it was left on Thursday for me to consider. I had said that I could not say that there was no prima faciecase; in other words, I did not know one way or the other. I was then invited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to say at the beginning of Tuesday what I had decided. I considered the matter and I saw the letter, naturally, and I had to rule one way or the other; and I am quite satisfied with my Ruling that there is no prima faciecase in this instance.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede) rose——

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me for one moment?

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order——

Mr. Churchill: We are on a point of order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will resume his seat. I am calling the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will resume his seat. I am calling the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Churchill rose——

Mr. Silverman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Churchill: It is a point of order. You having given your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, does not that definitely terminate the matter so far as the House is concerned? If so——

Mr. Manuel: It did not last Thursday.

Mr. Churchill: I would appeal to the Leader of the House to sustain Mr. Speaker in the Ruling which he has given.

Mr. Manuel: The Leader of the Opposition did not last Thursday.

Mr. Churchill: I have only one plea to add, and that is that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rogers), should have the opportunity of making a personal statement.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, even if the House were to accept this extremely surprising Ruling—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are cheering but they have not seen the letter which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks wrote to the Bishop. I have. One should not prejudge the matter. It was left in my hands to judge, and I saw the letter, and I am satisfied; and it ought to end there.

Mr. Silverman: I am putting to you, Mr. Speaker, that even if—I repeat—this surprising Ruling is accepted by the House, it is quite wrong to say that that disposes of the matter as far as the House is concerned. The only effect which such a Ruling could have, were it accepted, would be that the matter of complaint would lose the priority before all other business of the day which it would otherwise have. That would be the only effect. It does not take it away from the consideration of the House at all.
In view of that, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when I submitted to the obviously general view of the House, and, I think, of yourself, last Thursday that the Motion should be withdrawn, I expressly said, and you expressly agreed with me, that it would be without prejudice to my right to move the Motion again? Therefore, since, in spite of your Ruling, the matter is still one for the House, I think that the only way in


which the pledge that I should not be prejudiced by the delay could be discharged would be by enabling me to move the Motion, which I desired to move, on this Tuesday at the same time as I would have moved it last Thursday but for the representations made to me. Otherwise the pledge that I should not be prejudiced has obviously been broken.

Mr. Ede: When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition rose, I was about to rise, and I gave way to him at his request. I am bound to say that my reading of the end of the discussion last Thursday does not quite agree with the statement just made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I was not present in the House at that particular moment, but the last words in the discussion which took place are:
Mr. S. SILVERMAN: I am perfectly prepared on the understanding which we have been discussing to withdraw my Motion—it being understood that it is without prejudice to my right to raise the matter as soon as you indicate that you are ready to give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
That was followed by this statement by Mr. Speaker:
Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member now withdraws his Motion and will move it again later if I rule a prima facie case, say, on Tuesday next.
The record ends:
Motion, by leave, withdrawn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 694.]
I was not present, and, therefore, I have to rely on the written record for the history of what actually occurred.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind that no question had arisen of Mr. Speaker changing the Ruling which he had already given, except that he would consider whether he could convert it into the positive form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense; that is exactly what happened. The Ruling had been given, and someone from the Liberal benches questioned whether the negative form was good enough, and, in view of what had been said, Mr. Speaker said that he would consider whether he would give it in the positive form or not. But the negative form is the right form. There is no need to change it; it has been given, and it ought not to be withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I gave way because I thought that my hon. Friend wanted to make

merely a short correction of something that I had said. Having listened to him again, I feel bound by the words that you, Mr. Speaker, used just before the Motion was withdrawn. They are:
I understand that the hon. Member now withdraws his Motion and will move it again later if I rule a prima facie case, say, on Tuesday next.
The hon. Member was right in the last statement that he made. The fact that you have ruled out his application to move on two grounds—first, in the order given this afternoon, that the original application was out of time; and, second, that no prima faciecase has been established—does not withdraw the matter from the consideration of the House. All that it does is to deprive it of the priority that it enjoys if both those conditions are fulfilled, and it is open to any hon. Member to take such action as he thinks fit to bring it before the House. I suggest that it would be in accordance with the dignity of the House and the harmony of our proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We have no alternative but to accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but if the plain facts of the situation were now recognised by all Members of the House——

Mr. Silverman: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I would ask him whether, if I followed the course that he is suggesting, any early time would be found for the consideration of such a Motion.

Mr. Ede: I am now in exactly the same position as the hon. Member was in at the commencement of this discussion this afternoon. I hope that he will allow me to consider the matter, and I will undertake to consult with him, on the question of giving time, and through the usual channels, as to what would be acceptable to the House in the matter.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of order. Is it necessary to have a notice of Motion on the Order Paper, or, if not, can it be moved at 10 o'clock tonight?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it requires a notice on the Order Paper.

Mr. Silverman: I am in difficulty about this. My right hon. Friend's statement is perfectly consistent with this result: That he would have these conversations through the usual channels and find that


there was no early acceptable time, and if I had refrained from the only other action which is open to me, on the understanding that an early day would be provided, I might then have found myself with no early day provided and again prejudiced by delay. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend unduly, but he must make some recognition of the unexpected position in which I find myself. Therefore, I wish to press him to say, whether the other side want it or not, if he can give me early time. If he can, I am well content with that, because all I want is that the House shall consider the matter without pre-judging any issue or any person. I want it dealt with publicly. If my right hon. Friend cannot say that, there is another course open to me, but I must do it now, and, unless my right hon. Friend can give me that assurance, I shall do it now.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Ede: I take my position as Leader of the House as not identifying me in that position with either party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As Leader of the House I am responsible to the House. I am not the leader of a party and I regard myself in this matter as being at the junction of the usual channels. I was careful in the statement that I made to put "conversations with my hon. Friend" before I said "and through the usual channels." because I have a duty to him as Leader of the House to see——

Mr. Churchill: I apologise for interrupting. I was only going to assist the right hon. Gentleman by saying that, so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, if the Government like to give an opportunity out of their own time for the discussion of this matter, we have no objection.

Mr. Ede: May I say that that is helpful so far as it goes. I thought that this was perhaps one of the occasions where the Opposition, through the usual channels, might have agreed, as they have on some other matters, to go half and half with the contribution of time. After all, this is not a Government versus Opposition matter. This is a House of Commons matter, and I have tried throughout this discussion to adopt a House of Commons' view. I undertake to give my hon.

Friend an opportunity of being in any conversations that take place, and I think that I am entitled to ask that that opportunity shall be given, because, whatever other remedies my hon. Friend has, they are not prejudiced by his considering this matter.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to ask a question about that, Mr. Speaker. If my rights are in no way prejudiced, I do not want to persist. But let me be frank with you and the House, that I do not like the Ruling which has been given on either of these points. I am not bound to accept it, and the House is not bound to accept it, but if I wish to challenge it, I can only do so by putting down a Motion disagreeing with your Ruling or reflecting upon your Ruling. I should, in those circumstances, be prepared to take that course, if that is the only way open to me; but if I am not prejudiced by waiting to see what my right hon. Friend says, then I am prepared to wait.

Mr. Churchill: As this matter seems to be about to pass away from the House for the moment until some further action is taken in the matter, ought we not to have a personal statement from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—whose conduct has been called in question and who has been impugned from various quarters and has not been given that right, a right I have never known to be denied to any Member with very much less provocation—the right to make a personal statement? I submit that this right should not now be denied.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: It is for the House—I cannot accept it or deny it. If the House wishes the hon. Member to make a statement, then by all means let him make a statement.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Silverman: Before we come to that, could I have an answer to the question I have put?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can put down a Motion criticising or disagreeing with the Ruling I have given. He is entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to do it now because my Ruling has done away with his chance to raise it at the moment. But he is fully entitled


to put down a Motion disagreeing with my Ruling, which is the proper way of doing it.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. What I should like to hear from you, Mr. Speaker, is whether, if I wish to put down such a Motion, I ought to put it down quickly, or whether I could defer putting it down in order to see what comes of my right hon. Friend's offer without being prejudiced by waiting.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to wait to see what happens, he does not prejudice his chances by deferring it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would you mind giving your Ruling again, Mr. Speaker? I understood you to begin by ruling that as the matter was out of time you would not rule one way or the other, but later, as I understand it, you did rule that no breach of Privilege has been committed. It would be an advantage to the House, I think, particularly if we are to debate this matter again, to know exactly what your Ruling is. Suppose that the complaint is proved, will it then be in order, according to your Ruling, for a Member to send a constituent's letter to his superior?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is a little mistaken. I ruled on Thursday that I could not decide one way or the other. I did not rule today because it was out of date. I thought that it was out of date and that therefore we should not discuss it, but I gave way on that point to the House, because I had been into the matter and made up my mind, having seen the letter, that there was no prima faciecase, which is what I said I would do last Thursday.

Mr. Churchill: May I recur to the point that the hon. Member for Seven-oaks, who has been reflected upon, shall have an opportunity, here and now, to make a personal explanation to the House? [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] In the event of it being held to be a matter for the House to decide whether they will hear him or not, in view of all that has taken place, shall I be entitled to move a Motion that the hon. Member should be heard at the present time, and will that Motion be subject to debate and Division?

Mr. Paget: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's Motion lose its priority in the same way as the Motion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne? I would respectfully suggest that the time for the hon. Member to make the statement, which we are all anxious to hear in fairness to him, should be when time is given to debate the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am really trying to make peace over this matter. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks has the right to make a personal statement if he wishes, which is one of the rights of Private Members. I hope myself that the House will willingly agree to let him say what he has to say, which might even help the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. [Interruption.]

Mr. John Rodgers: I am grateful to you—[Interruption.]

An Hon. Member: Why did you no; speak last Thursday?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for allowing me——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Ede: May I appeal to my hon. Friends to give the hon. Member a courteous hearing. It is in my experience unexampled in the history of the House that when a Member who has had his conduct criticised wishes to make a personal statement he should be refused that privilege by the House.

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for this opportunity of making a personal statement on the subject which was introduced last Thursday after Question Time by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. At that time, as I informed the House, I had no intimation until the hon. Member was on his feet that the subject was going to be raised at all. Certain Members opposite seemed to doubt this, and so I hope I may be permitted to give the details.
I left the House last Wednesday at about five o'clock, having earlier arranged to pair with one of the hon. Members opposite. I do not know at what hour the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne handed his note to one of the messengers in the House. It would appear, however, that it lay in the rack unaddressed until late evening, when it was addressed by the


House postal authorities to my flat in London. The postmark is shown as 11 p.m. The letter was not delivered by the first post Thursday morning, and I left for my office at about 9.30 a.m. with such mail as had arrived. From my office I came straight to the House at 2 o'clock and I was in the Chamber from Question time until the matter under discussion. Subsequently about 6 o'clock in the evening I went back to my flat to find what I presume is the hon. Member's letter. I have it here with me, and I have it here unopened.
Like a lot of hon. Members, I receive many letters from my constituents. One of my correspondents both by letter and telegram has been a Mr. Fielding Clarke. This gentleman is vicar of Crockham Hill, near Edenbridge, in my constituency. He makes no secret of his views, and was one of the sponsors of the Communist-inspired so-called "Peace Conference," which was to have been held at Sheffield but which was later transferred to Warsaw. His letters to me have not raised any personal problems but have been purely propaganda efforts. Recently I received a letter from this vicar dated 11th February. It was not marked either "private" or "confidential." I should like to read this letter to the House.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. [Interruption.] If any letter is read there may be a lot of letters to be read. I have them all here. What I am submitting is that the principle of making a personal statement is that the Member ought not to take the opportunity of making an attack on other people who are not present, who cannot answer, and when those very matters are just the matters which if you, Mr. Speaker, had ruled otherwise would have been properly investigated by the Committee of Privileges and not in the way in which the hon. Member proposes. If I am wrong in my point of order and if the hon. Member is to be entitled to make his statement in this characteristic way, then I must request leave, when he finishes, to make a statement in which the correspondence can be completed.

Mr. Rodgers: Here is the letter.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if it would shorten the proceedings. Is it a very long letter?

Mr. Rodgers: It is not very long; it is only two pages.

Mr. Speaker: We will hear it.

Mr. Rodgers: The letter is as follows:

"DEAR MR. RODGERS,

"I see that there is to be a debate on rearmament and the re-arming of the Germans.

"At the present moment as 'The Times' points out, there is widespread apathy over Civil Defence, and as I go about among ordinary people never have I met so much anti-American feeling and dislike of war—especially in the Far East.

"It would seem that the cause for which we are to fight World War III under the command of the Americans and marching in step with the Germans is not sufficiently understood. The Americans, it is true, did their best the week before last to make clear what the cause of the Western. Christian and Free World is. At the same time as they released a number of so-called Nazi murderers and organisers of murder, they sent seven Negroes to the electric chair for an offence, in which no one had been murdered at all. How blind people are not to learn from this that the sacred cause of white supremacy and western democracy are the real issues at stake. The really important thing is to preserve the white, the rich and the strong—let black and Semitic half-men perish.

"Of course, the Church is partly to blame. We still have lists up in every church of the names of those who were killed fighting to destroy anti-Communists and expounders of racial theories. Cannot these boards be removed from churches by Act of Parliament and the names of the real martyrs of the Cause—Hitler, Goering and Goebbels—substituted? People, I am sure, would then be so much more enthusiastic about our foreign policy, and our politicians, both Labour and Conservative (it is so difficult nowadays to remember which is which) would no longer be apprehensive of a stab in the back.

"Of course, a few paragraphs of that curious document, the Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1948, will have to be removed as the Church is clearly warned of the disastrous consequences of linking-up with anti-Communist forces (Part II, page 21) and Resolution 6 condemns the racialism on which Nazi Germany and democratic America alike thrive.

"But I am sure that the leaders of the Church will do this if pressed. They came with moral support to the rescue of our bipartisan foreign policy by smearing the petition for banning the atom-bomb, and I have no doubt they will supply more of what a recent broadcast on American Forces Network called 'the spiritual asset' in defence of' a culture based on superforts' (to use the admirable phrase of one of our modern poets).

"If our Church leaders are hesitant one might get Dr. Malan, an ardent member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and one of the most distinguished leaders of the free western world, to expose for them, the fallacy that black people are children of God, or the equally curious proposition, made recently to


me by an obviously seditious villager, 'after all, the Communists are human beings'.

"The Church of England, as that fervent anti-Communist, Dr. Inge, once assured us has, in its corporate capacity, never seemed to respect anything but force, and therefore, if the persuasion of a good dinner at the Athenaeum fails, other means are not lacking to our politicians to bring about a healthy identity of Church and State. Thus it will not be so hard to build up the German ruling-class again as Wall St, and the City of London did so successfully after World War I. Only this time let the gas chambers of the concentration camps be bigger to match the splendour of American Christian powers of indiscriminate massacre as exemplified in the only sheet anchor of civilisation, the atom bomb."

I may say that I was profoundly shocked to receive a letter expressing such sentiments from a priest of the Church of England. Although I have always replied to Mr. Clarke's letters before without consulting anybody, in this case I felt that I should consult with someone in the Church before replying, since matters of Church doctrine seemed to be involved. It was not a question of the re-armament of Germany, as has been stated.

Accordingly, after due consideration, I decided to forward the letter, with a short covering note asking for his comments, to the Bishop of Rochester. Incidentally, perhaps I should state that I have never met the Bishop, nor have I previously communicated with him.

Mr. Silverman: Read the letter.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member has asked me to read the letter and I shall do so. It is:
"DEAR DR. CHAVASSE,
I thought you ought to see this letter from the vicar of Crockham Hill, in my constituency. I have had many communications from him advocating the Communist line. However, this letter seems to me to go a bit beyond that and to attack the Church. Is there anything we can do about this?

Mr. Driberg: What has it got to do with the Bishop anyway?

Mr. Rodgers: I should be grateful if you could return Mr. Fielding Clarke's letter, so that I can reply to it in due course.
I wrote to the Bishop, first, because I judged him to be like myself, in a privileged position, since he is one of the Peers Spiritual and a Member of another place; and, secondly, because my con-

stituency lies within his diocese. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out that a Bishop's relationship with one of his vicars is not that of employer and employee. The Bishop has no authority either to cause a clergyman to resign or submit to discipline, and, therefore, there is no possible question of victimisation. In forwarding this letter to the Bishop for his comments I acted with the welfare of my constituents in mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and in what I conceived to be the public interest.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose——

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order. I understood that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was making a personal explanation, with the leave of the House. What is the status of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in intervening now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Gag."] Are we to understand that he is making a personal explanation? If not, what is the Motion to which he will be addressing himself?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne also wants to make a personal statement.

Mr. Silverman: I will make a personal statement, and I will make it very short, because I hope to have an opportunity of going into these matters at greater length on another occasion. There are two points with which I think I ought to deal now. One is the question of the notice I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I can only assume—and I suppose that he must have assumed, too, because he did not open the letter to find out—that the letter that he has in his possession is the one which was the notice. If he would now kindly open it and read it he will find out. As I cannot remember any other occasion on which I have written to him, or, indeed, imagine any future occasion on which I would desire to——

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of order. Am I right, Sir, in my recollection that personal statements should not be controversial?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: A personal statement deals with one's own personal matters, and an hon. Member is not allowed to attack another hon. Member.

Mr. Silverman: I should have thought that nothing could have been less controversial than my inquiring into my correspondence. It seems to me a matter purely for me. It seems to me that the letter is the one to which we are referring. I have taken a little trouble to find out what happened to it, and if the hon. Member for Sevenoaks had taken trouble then, or would take it now, he could easily confirm the accuracy of what I am now telling the House.
I went straight from the House after the matter was raised last Thursday to the messenger, and from him to the post office here, to find out what had happened. I report to the House what they told me, because I think the House would not wish them to remain under any kind of uncertainty. They tell me that the letter was handed to one of them by me at a minute or two after 6 p.m. That, I think, would accord with my own recollection, because it was just before that that I had sought advice at the Table as to what I ought to do. I think that on the envelope the letter is marked "Urgent." The messenger confirmed that when I handed it to him I verbally expressed to him the extreme desirability of its being delivered to the hon. Member at once. They inform me that, in view of those two facts, they sent it round the House four times in search of the hon. Member.

Mr. Rodgers: Mr. Rodgers rose——

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member has already told us why that was, and I have not forgotten. He said that he left the House at 5 o'clock, having paired. I did not know that. The messengers therefore sent the letter round the House four times. I am putting it in this way, because the hon. Member left the impression that the letter had remained in the letter rack until a later hour of the evening, and that was certainly not the case. They sent it round, while looking for him, four times. In the end—and he will find, I am informed, that the envelope has four different stamps confirming that—being unable to find the hon. Member, they took it, as is the normal course, to the Members' post office and handed it in. At the post office they say that the letter was added to the rest of the hon. Member's mail

and was dealt with by the post office in strict accordance with the hon. Member's standing instruction to them as to what they were to do with his letters. They took the whole mail, including this letter, and posted them to him at about 10 o'clock the night before.

Mr. Rodgers: May I point out that it was 11 o'clock, according to the postmark?

Mr. Silverman: I am only repeating what I am told. I think the House ought to know it. I am repeating it only to establish that the hon. Member did receive the letter. Of course, if he says that he did not receive it I take his word for it, but to satisfy the House, as I hope I have done, that so far as I am concerned, and as the machinery of the House is concerned—two messengers and the post office—everything was done to make the hon. Member acquainted. Short of taking the letter by hand to the hon. Member's address and delivering it on his doorstep, I do not see what else could have been done. I hope that the hon. Member will be honourable enough to withdraw the charge that he made last week, and that he implied again today, that every effort had not been made to see that he received the notice.
The other point with which I want to deal concerns part of the statement, or an omission from the statement that one might have thought would be there, because an attack had been made upon the hon. Member's constituent and I think that one short point ought to be made. The hon. Member did, in fact, acknowledge his constituent's letter. He has told us with what horror he received it and what high motives of public duty prompted him to send it on to the Bishop.

Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of order. Are not these comments and innuendos entirely out of order, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: The whole thing is quite out of order, and I hope that it will be brought to a conclusion very shortly so that we can get on with the business.

Mr. Silverman: Unless I am interrupted I hope to conclude within a few minutes. I would like to read to the House a letter which the hon. Member for Seven-oaks wrote to his constituent. We heard


what he said about the letter in the House:

"DEAR MR. FIELDING CLARKE,

Thank you for your letter of the 11th. I do not think I can do better than send you a copy of the HANSARD of the recent foreign affairs debate, from which you will see that everyone is firmly of the opinion that the only aggressor in the world is Soviet Russia, and that the only reason for our re-armament is the threat of world aggression by the Soviet Union.

Yours sincerely,"

I only read the letter, not to debate the sentiments which to many are admirable, no doubt, but in order to point out that there is not one word in that letter to indicate to the constituent that his letter had been sent on to the Bishop with a request to see what he could do about it; nor is there a single word in the letter from which the hon. Member's constituent could have gathered that he resented the letter in any way.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: If we are to debate the matter, surely we should defer it until later. We are delaying matters enormously, and I do not think we are quite in a mood to debate it calmly, coolly and objectively.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: In view of the enormous constitutional and, apparently, party importance of this matter, in view of the nature of the statement by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, and in

view of the fact that this is a matter which must clearly be given further consideration by all of us, would it now be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to give the House the reasons for your opinion and for your direction today that no prima faciecase of a breach of Privilege has been made out?

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker never gives his reasons for his decisions.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the great importance of this matter, and now that we have heard the explanation of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the statement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and since it was ruled on Thursday that this is essentially a matter for the House to decide, may I urge the Leader of the House to provide facilities for this matter to be discussed at an early date?

Mr. Ede: I have listened to the proceedings of the last half-hour or so, and I shall certainly have to take them into consideration when I reach any decision that I have to take or any advice which I propose to tender. I would suggest to the House that, the matter having been very fully ventilated, we might now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTI- MATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1951–52.

(VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolution [27th February] reported.
That a sum, not exceeding £929,264,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

[For details of Vote on Account seeOFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February,1951, c. 1942–1946.]

Resolution agreed to.

GAMBIA POULTRY SCHEME

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire) rose——

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put this point to you for guidance? I believe that it is hoped to conclude this part of our business round about seven o'clock. The commencement has been very seriously delayed, and might I suggest with respect that when we approach the expected hour of conclusion you will use your discretion?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule one way or the other. It is a matter for the House to decide. If hon. Members like to put half an hour on, it is their affair.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the financial losses caused by the collapse of the Gambia Poultry Scheme, which had been launched without adequate consultation or any preliminary pilot scheme to discover whether the poultry could be kept in healthy production or the necessary feedingstuffs grown in the Colony.
The facts which I hope to give to the House today were in order and were accurate up to the time that this debate was due to start. I must express the hope that events have not moved so fast in Gambia in the last hour that I may be guilty of giving the House any incorrect information.
I think that the whole House will have heard with distress, though some Members may not have heard it altogether with surprise, the statement made a few days ago on 28th February by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. A sum of £825,000 has already been advanced for this project and we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that a substantial part of this sum must be written off. We have not been told, I am glad to say, that it is financially prudent to write it off but it is none the less financially inevitable. In addition to that, we were told that some 30,000 of the birds have died and that it has now been discovered in Gambia that with our present knowledge it is not possible to grow a sufficient quantity of food to keep the scheme going, and, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, the scheme stands or falls by local production.
We have to face today a further heavy financial loss on the British taxpayer, and it comes on the eve of another Budget which is bound to put fresh burdens on our people. It must raise in the minds of everybody grave doubts as to whether this is the last of the many failures that must be attributed to the present Administration. I think one thing does emerge from a close study of this project—and I believe I am in tune with all Members of the House on this point—and that is that no blame whatever for this failure can attach to the noble Lord, the new Chairman of the Corporation, Lord Reith, who has acted promptly and honourably. Incidentally, may I say how very glad we are that since his arrival at the Corporation it has been much easier to get information about the various activities of the Corporation.
The House will remember that the scheme was originally designed to produce some 20 million eggs a year for the British market, and about one million lb. of dressed poultry for that market. At the moment a negligible quantity of poultry and some 38,000 eggs instead of 20 million have arrived, and we understand now that there are not likely to be further eggs, and that those that are produced will be consumed locally. Thirty-eight thousand eggs could be produced without any difficulty whatever by a few people on English smallholdings. If the £825,000 that has been spent had been spent on British agriculture, in


getting feedingstuffs for our own producers, it has been calculated that some 72 million eggs could have been produced here in the United Kingdom.
Far from the scheme being self-supporting, they are unfortunately now being obliged to import feedingstuffs into the Gambia. From a Parliamentary reply given on 7th March we learned that some 2,394 tons of imported feedingstuffs had been necessary even to provide the meagre results so far attained. That amount of feedingstuffs, if imported into the United Kingdom, would have produced more than four million eggs. In addition, we understand, 300,000 precious dollars, much needed to buy animal feedingstuffs for people who could produce the eggs and do so in climates where they can rear poultry, have been spent on this project.
I am afraid that closer examination of this scheme reveals that it has all the hall marks, though on a smaller scale, of the Groundnuts Scheme. It is an irony that this Government, having failed to produce groundnuts in East Africa, have now gone for their egg project to the Gambia, where groundnuts flourish. In the last two years, side by side with the egg scheme in the Gambia, the producers there actually exported 60,000 tons of groundnuts each year, which is 12 times as much each year as the entire production for three years of the Government's Groundnuts Scheme, not bad for a country of about 250,000 people, and which is only half the size of Wales. Of course the production of groundnuts in the Gambia is in the hands of private enterprise who made what to the planner may be the mistake of going to a country where groundnuts grow and entrusting the growing of them to people who know how to do it.
As I say, this scheme bears all the hall marks of the Groundnuts Scheme. It has many similar features. As in East Africa, so in the Gambia, there was the same failure to have soil tests, the same failure to have rainfall tests, the same failure to have experimental plots, the same failure to experiment and see whether the birds could flourish or whether the crops could grow, the same failure to take any account of the lessons of the Colonial Office in its inquiry into mechanisation in tropical Africa, which

was actually produced while this scheme was taking place, and the report of which came out last May, when doubts about this scheme were first becoming public property.
There has also, as the House knows, and as some of my hon. Friends will develop later, been a quite astonishingly failure to have any regard to the inquiries of the Medical Research Council who were carrying on precisely the same sort of inquiries into the same sort of problem at the same time in the Gambia. This would really be unbelievable had we not had our imaginations slightly expanded by the events of the last few years.
We hear precisely the same excuses as in East Africa. We were told by the Secretary of State for War in regard to East Africa that one of the reasons for the failure was that 1949 was a year of unexpected drought. In the Report on the Gambia for 1950 we are told that it has been a year of unexpected rainfall. Always the same reason, and the results are, I am afraid, so patent as scarcely to need statement in this House. There is growing cynicism and disillusion at home. There is, I am sorry to say, ridicule abroad. I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to a passage published recently in an American newspaper which is not always unfriendly to the present Administration of this country. It states:
Another ambitious British Socialist scheme flapped sadly home to roost last week. Horrified Britons realised each egg and each pound of poultry"—
in the Gambia—
cost around £8.
If there is disillusion at home and ridicule abroad there is more disillusion——

Mr. Cocks: From what is the hon. Gentleman quoting?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The journal "Time."
If there is disillusion at home and ridicule abroad there is also disillusion in Africa. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will not use the argument that this scheme was launched to develop the Gambia, or that having been launched and failed it has done some good to the Gambia. Surely this is not the way to help our Colonies. A derelict town at Kongwa, an abandoned scheme in the Gambia—these will not help to impress the Africans with


modern methods of cultivation. They will further encourage him in the belief that his own ways are the best, and instead of helping progress they will retard development and prejudice all future schemes.
Nor does the comparison between the two schemes stop there. There is today, unfortunately, the same recognition that we have to write off substantial sums of capital. Three weeks ago we wrote off £36 million in East Africa for the groundnuts gamble, and in return, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said, we learned two lessons; that, to use the words of the Corporation:
peculiarities…vary from farm to farm
and that the
groundnut is not a plant which lends itself readily to mass methods over vast acreages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1104.]
That cost £36 million. Today, we are writing off the greater part of £800,000 and all we have learned is that Gambia does not lend itself to the large scale production of animal feedingstuffs by mechanised processes.
Nor does the comparison stop there. Once more we are to have, as in East Africa, a pilot scheme too late, a pilot scheme when the money is already spent. It is the main part of our indictment of the Government today that the pilot scheme should have preceded the expenditure and not followed it.
Finally, in these comparisons there is a stranger similarity between the way in which the House and the country have been treated with regard to the facts and developments of these schemes. Although I continue, as I began, by saying that we certainly have the utmost confidence that the noble Lord who is at present in charge will never be guilty of lack of candour in the statements which he makes to the House and the public——

Mr. Ellis Smith: While taking no exception to the criticism made by the hon. Gentleman up to now, may I ask him whether, when he pays a tribute to the new Chairman of the Corporation, he is also accepting the over-all policy and idea of the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We certainly supported the marriage of State and private enterprise, but we made it quite plain at the start that we thought the best line for the Corporation to take would be to create the conditions under which efficient businesses could flourish, to concentrate, first and foremost, on communications, for example, and not to enter too much into the running of businesses on their own, and, above all, not to undertake too many businesses too soon.
I said that there had been the same lack of candour about taking the House and the country into the confidence of the Corporation as Ministers showed over the Groundnuts Scheme. There have been the same suggestions that there are hidden assets like timber which are to yield rich dividends. In the case of Tanganyika we were told of the great developments at Noli, where an elaborate sawmill was built to deal with what the Secretary of State for War called the dollar earner and the dollar saver—Tanganyikan timber. In the Gambia, we are told, in the First Annual Report, 1948, that
the proceeds from the sale of timber will substantially offset the cost of clearing the ground.
We now know that it will do nothing of the sort, that the timber has virtually no commercial value at the moment, and for export.
There have been the same re-assuring statements, and the same attacks on any criticism as were a feature in the case of the Groundnut Scheme, accompanied by a most extraordinary statement which, I am told, was issued by the Colonial Development Corporation, and which appeared in this week's issue of "Everybody's," which suggested that the debate could with advantage be put off though they recognised that it might not be politically expedient. Quite what was meant by that phrase I do not know, but I should have thought that a Corporation of this kind, which serves the country, which means all parties, was not interested in questions of political expediency or in the motives of any hon. Members, but only anxious to get on with its own job.
I said that there had been an astonishing lack of candour, and I think I must buttress up that general remark with one or two specific illustrations. Take the example of the poultry themselves. The


Annual Report of the Corporation for the year ending 1949 was presented to Parliament in July, 1950, and on page 2 it says:
the health…of the flocks"—
in the Gambia—
is excellent.
Yet a week ago we were told by the Secretary of State that that very summer—and it was in July that the statement was made—30,000 of the birds, three in every eight, died of fowl typhoid. In July we were told, with no hint of trouble to come, that the health of the flocks was excellent.
In the same Report we were told:
the …fertility of the flocks is excellent.
That came to the notice of the House in July, yet we now know that in March of last year Dr. Gordon of the Animal Health Trust had flown out to the Gambia to advise specifically on the failure of the fertility of the flocks. Again, in that same month, when Dr. Gordon was on his way to the Gambia, the Secretary of State said in this House, with no hint of trouble to come, that the scheme was proceeding satisfactorily.
So much for the poultry. I suppose the real, the greater, charge relates to the failure to appreciate the difficulties of growing the feedingstuffs, for on that the scheme has broken down. Now consider for a moment what Parliament has been told about that. In July, 1950, only last year, we were told in the Report:
There is good reason to expect that at least 50 per cent. of the food required will be locally produced this year"—
that is last year—
and it is hoped that 75 per cent. will be
locally produced in 1951. We now know from Parliamentary answers this week that 2,300-odd tons have been imported into the Gambia, and that last year alone, while this statement was being made, 1,417 tons were actually imported. On what possible basis could the assumption have been made, and the virtual undertaking given, that this year 75 per cent. of all the feedingstuffs would be produced in the Gambia.
Even more astonishing statements can be found if we turn to some of the statements made by the Minister of State for the Colonies, and in particular in some of

the airy assurances he gave in this House in April, 1950. He then repeated the old argument that there would be 20 million eggs in due course. He was quite rightly questioned from the Liberal benches with a whole series of very pertinent questions. At this time Dr. Gordon was already there, or had gone out and, as far as I know, was there. But no hint of the difficulty was allowed to creep into the Minister of State's answers. He was asked from the Liberal benches: What about soil erosion? What about vitamin deficiencies?—which must have been deeply agitating the Colonial Office at the time. Finally, in a very excellent question by the Liberal Whip he was asked whether the Gambia could not be helped in a more sensible way than this, in a better way. What did the right hon. Gentleman reply? When asked whether the Gambia could not be helped better in another way he replied:
No, Sir"—
as if this really was the way to help the Gambia. Then he added:
I think that this scheme is starting off very successfully."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 950.]
It is our contention that by that time anyhow there must have been the gravest doubts in the Colonial Office and the Overseas Food Corporation.
One or two organs of the Press took up this assurance, and the right hon. Gentleman was challenged on what he had said. Deep resentment of Press criticism has hitherto been marked by statements by the Corporation, in this case in a paper, "The Colonial Development Magazine," which is paid for by the taxpayer. The charges of one newspaper were catalogued, and the Corporation gave what they called "facts in answer" and this is a typical fact:
The farm is overcoming all its difficulties and is likely to achieve its target within the next 18 months.
That was only last summer. On the same day as that upon which the right hon. Gentleman made the other observation to which I have drawn attention, 26th April, he was asked specifically whether he was satisfied that there would be adequate feedingstuffs available, and he answered:
As far as I know.
Well, it is our contention that he would have known more than that. He added


what I must say seems to be rather incredible:
I should like questions of detail to be asked of the…Colonial Development Corporation. I am only responsible here for questions of general principle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 950.]
Yet was the supply of feedingstuffs a question of detail? Was it not a matter of general principle? In the words of his colleague, did not everything turn on it, for, as the Secretary of State said only a few days ago:
the scheme as originally conceived stands or falls by the local production of feeding-stuffs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1950; Vol. 484, c. 2105.]
The last of my quotations from HANSARD is even more recent. On 23rd October of last year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food told the House:
we expect to receive about a quarter of a million eggs by the end of this year, 1950."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 303.]
Now, re regard it as inconceivable that by that time consideration had not been given to closing the scheme down altogether, or drastically curtailing it.
We shall await the reply of the Secretary of State with the very greatest interest. I think I know some of the arguments he may use. I hope he will not use, for example, arguments like this: "In all great pioneering ventures you must take risks." After all, it is indisputable, I think, that these risks need never have been taken, and that a little patient work—humbler, but patient work—would have made them unnecessary. Unnecessary and unjustified risks were taken which small scale experiments would have saved.
I hope again that the right hon. Gentleman will not say that it is to the advantage of the Colony to have a colossal failure planted in its midst. As I said before, nothing is more calculated to discredit Western ways than failures of this kind. The proper way to help in Gambia is, curiously enough, to be found in another publication of the right hon. Gentleman's Department in its references to the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. What were they doing last year? Quite quietly, without any trumpets, they were providing storm water drainage, reclaiming the swamps in the Gambia, and improving mosquito control. That is the way to help a Colony, not to leave derelict

illustrations of rash and foolhardy enterprises to be a problem for this and future generations.
I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will not say that this scheme must be judged in relation to all the other schemes; that this is only 3 per cent. of the output of the Colonial Development Corporation, and that there are 50 other schemes. We shall have a chance to debate the other schemes when the Report comes out—and there is every indication that we shall have that Report soon. Let not the right hon. Gentleman shelter behind the argument that there are 50 other schemes, for that also in our eyes is a great offence. To have 50 schemes in such a short time must mean that the schemes could not have been properly conceived. The proper way to defend projects of any kind would be that they were small in number, and that each had been ruthlessly examined by local and other experts so as to see which were worth pursuing and which were not worth trying at all.
The Government, in face of hard facts, are being brought to certain definite conclusions. They do not yet know—any more than we of the Conservative Party claim to know—what is needed to conquer Africa, although only a week or two ago the Minister of Food said they did. Britain's rule and co-operation in Africa is of very short duration compared with the immense history of that great continent. We do not know what is needed to conquer Africa, but we believe that patience, experiment and humility are helpful virtues. It is largely because we see no sign of any of those virtues in this scheme that I beg to move the Motion.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Motion.
The statement which the Secretary of State for the Colonies had to make to the House on 28th February came as a great shock to the country. But Ministers cannot pretend that they did not have due and repeated warnings of what some shrewd people thought was happening in the Gambia. I looked through HANSARD last night and I was appalled at the number of questions I had addressed on this scheme. For more than a year we have been expressing doubts about the sound-


ness of this project, but on each occasion Ministers have blandly misled this House. I will give one or two examples which my hon. Friend did not mention.
On 26th April last year the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs assured us that this scheme was starting off very successfully. On 12th May last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he had authorised the expenditure of 262,000 dollars on the purchase of American equipment and hatching eggs. So he also, at that time, was well sold on this scheme. On 21st June last year the Minister of State assured us that this poultry farm would very soon be on a self-supporting basis, growing good crops to feed the hens.
On 23rd October the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food told us that he hoped to receive a quarter of a million eggs by the end of last year. On 31st January this year the Minister of Food admitted that he had received 38,500 eggs but hoped for increased quantities this year. In addition, imports of dead poultry amounted to 4,360 tons. Then, on 28th February, came the confession of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the scheme would have to be modified considerably, that we should lose most of our money, and that no more shipments would be made beyond an additional 7,000 tons of dead poultry.
Dead and dying poultry seem to be the main features of this scheme. Some 30,000 died of typhoid last summer. If I ran my poultry like that, I should have been prosecuted long ago by the R.S.P.C.A. Incidentally, I am glad to reflect that my hens produced more than 38,500 eggs last month, let alone last year.
No doubt this Gambia scheme looked very fine on paper to someone who knew nothing about the tropics and nothing about keeping hens. Clear 10,000 acres of bush, grow sorghum at the rate of 800 lb. to the acre which would feed 200,000 hens who would produce 20 million eggs and one million lb. of table poultry a year. With the sorghum grown at 4d. a lb., eggs could be put on board ship at 2s. 9d. a dozen, and dressed poultry at 2s. a lb. That is a perfect theoretical calculation. It can be worked out from American text books. We should

all make a fortune and we should have eggs and poultry galore.
Shades of Whitaker Wright, Jabez Balfour and Horatio Bottomley. They knew how to sell a bright idea but, in the end, they had to answer to the courts. What they missed in their generation! What a time they could have had with the Overseas Food Corporation or the Colonial Development Corporation and with the taxpayers' money flowing like water. The basic trouble with this scheme in the Gambia, as with the groundnut scheme in Tanganyika, is that no one paused to make proper investigations of the practical problems which had to be solved. Any commercial firm or person would, first of all, find out something about the soil. Would it grow enough crops of the right kind at a reasonable cost to feed the hens?
In the Gambia there was already an object lesson at hand in the shifting patch cultivation which the Gambian native has to adopt. He cannot grow enough to feed his family properly, and year by year what is called the "hungry season" has been growing longer and longer. Indeed, so serious had this problem become that the Medical Research Council sent a research team out to the Gambia and, very properly, we have been spending £52,000 in trying to find out what is wrong with the soil, and seeing if we can help the native to grow better crops and to maintain a more satisfactory level of nutrition for himself and his family.
Mr. Phillips, the bulldozing American who was selected by Lord Trefgarne to run this scheme, had, of course, no use for the Medical Research Council and what they were doing. Indeed, it was not until 9th February this year that the Council sent a memorandum to the manager of the poultry farm in the Gambia passing on the results of their cropping and fertiliser trials.
Thanks to the co-operation of the Foreign Secretary we have had an opportunity of looking at this memorandum in the Library. It is signed by Dr. R. A. Webb, who is one of the team engaged on human nutritional research for the Medical Research Council. It is a most interesting document. Dr. Webb is, of course, looking at this problem of the soil and the cropping in the Gambia from the point of view of human nutrition,
but it is absolutely the same problem into which the Colonial Development Corporation have run headlong.
What happens in the Gambia is that the native clears a bit of bush and crops it for about five years. Each year after the first he gets poorer crops and, finally, he has to abandon it and let nature take charge in restoring some fertility. It may be that nature takes charge for 40 years, a long rotation, until natural fertility has been restored again to that soil. What Dr. Webb was concerned about—as, indeed, the Colonial Development Corporation must be concerned—is whether it is possible to maintain a decent level of fertility by developing a crop rotation. Here in this country the success of our cropping depends on having a well-developed rotation and that, in turn, depends on growing crops in the rotation which will restore some of the fertility, particularly legume crops.
The trouble in the Gambia is that the groundnut grown ther is deficient in the root nodules that will take nitrogen from the air, and the groundnut is a poor agent for restoring soil fertility. So, as Dr. Webb points out in his memorandum, the soil of the Gambia is markedly deficient in nitrogen and also in various other elements necessary to full crop growth. The soil is deep sand and the rainfall intense, reaching two inches in an hour. That rules out the economic application of fertilisers such as we use in this country, because their virtue is quickly washed out of the top-soil. So Dr. Webb, in the memorandum prepared on behalf of the Medical Council, and sent to the Colonial Development Corporation, points out clearly the fundamental trouble in the Gambia, whether we are trying to grow crops for human beings or hens. He says:
The population of the Gambia is reaching, if it has not already reached, a level above which the land is unable adequately to supply the food required for reasonable living standards. Attempts to increase food production by more extensive cultivation, particularly if produce is exported, will wreck the efficiency of the shifting system and precipitate a rapid decline in fertility.
That is the warning which the scientific worker employed by the Medical Research Council has had to give to the Colonial Development Corporation. What a pity such considerations were not in the minds of the Corporation before they

started this scheme. Of course, the troubles that affect the Gambian's patch of cultivation are much aggravated in the 10,000 acre block we have cleared from the bush. This has created a sandy desert where erosion by wind and rain quickly destroys any natural fertility. No wonder we have not been able to feed our poultry properly; no wonder that they have been dying left and right.
Some people may say "It is all unfortunate, but what a fine thing we have done for the Gambia." Dr. Webb and the Medical Research Council do not think so. It looks as if we have merely helped the people of the Gambia to starve themselves quicker than they would otherwise have done; the hungry season becomes longer and longer, and nothing we have done has shown the Gambian how he can grow better crops for himself and raise his standard of nutrition. Virtually no benefit has so far accrued to the Gambian.
Men and women from the Bahamas were brought in to run this scheme. They had been working on a similar scheme under the direction of Mr. Phillips before. He brought them over to the Gambia. It was the intention that the work should be handed over to the natives of the Gambia, but no—Mr. Phillips did not trust the Gambians with his precious hatching eggs and his precious poultry.
Now we have to learn something from this costly fiasco. The Colonial Development Corporation, and any other Government corporation that are prowling around for likely projects that will benefit mankind, must apply the elementary rules that guide commercial enterprises. It is utter folly to attempt to embrace 50 novel schemes in a period of two years. Indeed, the boast of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, made the other day, that the C.D.C. had started over 50 schemes, condemns the Government and the C.D.C. out of his own mouth. All these projects could not possibly have been thoroughly investigated by competent people. The essential preliminary work has been sacrificed for the sake of making a show quickly. Well, what a show we have made in the Gambia!
People may say, "But look what we are doing to develop the Empire." Half-baked schemes like this set back the cause of Empire development. They do not set a good example to anyone to go and


do likewise. Surely, all these Colonial Development Corporation projects must be assessed by practical men who know something about the tropics, about growing sorghum or about raising poultry or whatever the particular project may be.

Mr. Rankin: What was Mr. Phillips?

Mr. Hurd: Mr. Phillips has a very interesting record and I commend that inquiry to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, no doubt, will tell us.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose——

Mr. Hurd: I am nearing my conclusion, and I have not a first-hand knowledge of Mr. Phillips. No doubt the Secretary of State for the Colonies has that knowledge.
We must get all these schemes, however promising they look, vetted properly by men who know something about the tropics, about rainfall, or about producing poultry or whatever the project may be. There is always someone, somewhere in the world, who has done, or who has tried to do, something similar, maybe with success, or maybe not. There is always advice to be got which is based on experience. These are the men whose opinions must be sought out and tested before a novel project is started.
In most cases, it would be best to effect a partnership between the Colonial Development Corporation and private enterprise, so as to bring the profit motive into play. That would be the best guarantee against more of these disappointments. It is all very well for a Government Corporation to accept schemes on the basis that if one does not pay, another one will pay. That is terribly deceptive. The manager of each will be thinking that it does not matter if his particular scheme is. "in the red" because somebody else's will be paying well, but there comes a day of reckoning when too many schemes are "in the red" and the total looks very nasty.
Can the House be assured that there are now on the Board of the Colonial Development Corporation practical men capable of making a critical assessment of new projects and of keeping a careful watch on the project that has been started? In this House we have a duty

to the taxpayers of the country no less than to the peoples of the Colonial Empire. We know now how things can go wrong, and many of us know, too, that we can place no faith in the practical wisdom and business sense of present Ministers—I wish that we could, because they have heavy responsibilities.
There are, I am afraid—and I speak not merely for those on these benches, but for the country—present today Ministers who have shown themselves incapable of seeing that such enterprises are run successfully. So we must ask the House to approve the Motion. There can be no shadow of doubt that we are right to record our regret and dissatisfaction at the scandalous way in which this affair has been handled.

5.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): In October of last year, six months ago, we had a debate on the 1949 Annual Report of the Colonial Development Corporation. It was the first debate in the House on the reports of the Colonial Development Corporation. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) spoke for the Opposition on that occasion, as he has done today, and I want to quote the words he used in the opening paragraphs of his speech last October, so that the House may contrast them with the tone and spirit of his speech this afternoon. These are the words which the hon. Member used six months ago:
We have tried as far as possible over recent years to lift colonial problems out of party controversy, and we are certainly at one with the Government in wishing all success to the Colonial Development Corporation, and, indeed, in giving them a meed of praise to which in large part they are entitled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October. 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2286.]
I responded to that and as a result, last October, we had a very good debate in which the central purpose, the general policy and, to some extent, individual schemes were discussed and considered by the House. It is interesting to note that in his speech of last October the hon. Member never referred to the Gambia scheme—he said not a single word about it. He had not thought about it then. Although he spoke for half an hour on the Report of the Colonial Development Corporation, he had no knowledge of what he has been speaking about today.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is not true. When the right hou. Gentleman started to read out something I had said, I thought he would find something a little more harmful to me than what he has quoted. We have, of course, tried to lift these things out of party political controversy. This is a matter, unfortunately, on which the information now available causes us to realise what a terrible mess has been made. When we had that debate we were debating a Report which had the effect, although no doubt unintentionally, of wholly misleading Parliament.

Mr. Griffiths: At any rate, if these things were clear last October, the hon. Gentleman did not refer to them. The reason why I say that the hon. Member's speech today and the Motion contrast with the spirit and tone of the remarks which he made in October—both those I have quoted and the whole of his speech—is that this debate today is being held following a statement I made to the House two weeks ago. The Board made a report to me through their Chairman, and as a consequence I made a statement to the House that the Board had come to conclusions, which I do not want to repeat, but which were expressed in the statement I made. Then I went on to say that the Board of the Corporation is now examining in detail the report of the mission which it sent out at the beginning of this year to investigate the Gambia poultry and general farming scheme on the spot.
I then promised that when the Board had been able to complete this examination and to formulate proposals, for the future of the scheme I would make a further statement to the House. My first statement was a statement on an interim report received by the Corporation from the mission and on a preliminary report submitted by the Board to myself and I promised the House then—and that promise still remains—that when the Board had had an opportunity of examining in detail the further reports submitted by the mission I would make a statement to the House and thereafter the House would have the complete report before then.
If it is the desire of the Opposition to leave colonial debates out of party controversy, in view of the statement I have made that it is a preliminary report from

the Board, I would have thought they would have awaited the final report before seeking a debate on a Motion in the House.

Captain Crookshank: We have learned one lesson.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not want to bandy words with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman because I learned some lessons from him in the inter-war years, when I know how successful he was as Secretary of State for Mines; but we do not want to go into that today.

Captain Crookshank: We are not talking about coal now; we are talking about Africa.

Mr. Griffiths: The Board are pressing on with their consideration of the Report and the formulation of proposals. I did not want to urge them, and indeed I did not urge them to seek to complete their further examination of this problem and submit their proposals to me in view of the fact that this debate had been arranged. I think it would be wrong for me to urge them to seek to come to a conclusion about the scheme until they have had adequate time to consider the report of the mission, which only came back from the Gambia to London in the week in which I answered the questions. There have been only two weeks to consider the Report.
I think the Opposition might have waited. The fact is that what they have done is to subordinate and surrender any interest in colonial welfare to partisan interests of their party. Moreover, we had the annual report of the Colonial Development Corporation presented last July and I indicated, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has indicated, that the Report ought to be available to us before July of the succeeding year. I promised the House then—a promise I have kept—that I would urge on the Corporation that it was very desirable that their Report should be published earlier and the Report for 1950 should be published this year, well before July.
The Report will be available in a few weeks. When it is available the House and the country will be able to judge this scheme as part of the general work of the Corporation, whereas now, by raising the question of this one scheme, what we have done is to highlight one


failure without saying a word about the other schemes which have been of such benefit to Colonial territories. It is part of the age in which we live, apparently, that the only news is bad news and if it is bad news it goes on the front pages of the Tory Press. The result of this debate in Gambia and elsewhere will be to highlight the one scheme that has failed and the implication will be that because one scheme has failed the Corporation as an instrument and the whole idea of colonial development has failed as well.
If, on the other hand, hon. Members opposite had exercised some of the patience they have been urging on me and on the Corporation and waited until the Report was published, in a few weeks now, the debate could have taken place on this one scheme in the context of the whole of the programme and plans and schemes of the Corporation and a proper picture would have been given to the country. However, I do not attempt this afternoon to forecast what the details of the Report will be, but merely say that it will be available to the House. I hope there will be opportunities for the House to discuss the Report as a whole, so that we shall be able fairly, without bias, to discuss the work of the Corporation.
I now propose to deal with some of the basic conditions in the relationship between the Board, the Colonial Office, the Secretary of State and the House of Commons, because this is very important and was implicit in all that has been said already. Before doing so, however, I want to raise another matter. If it is Ministers who are referred to, Ministers are here and can answer for themselves, but the Chairman and members of the Corporation are involved and, therefore, I want to ask the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), who speaks under the privilege of this House, as I do, to whom he was referring when he used the words, "Shades of Horatio Bottomley and Jabez Balfour. How they would have enjoyed themselves." Was he seeking to imply that members of the Corporation are Horatio Bottomleys and Jabez Balfours? I wait for him to reply.

Mr. Hurd: The gullible way in which the schemes were accepted reminded me of the scandals which took place at the time when those gentlemen were active.

Mr. Griffiths: Since those gentlemen do not sit in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] Since the members of the Corporation do not sit in the House—indeed, they are precluded by the terms of the Act from doing so——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Two sit in another place——

Mr. Griffiths: But not in this House—I suggest that the honest thing for the hon. Member for Newbury to do is to make the statement outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly.

Mr. Hurd: I am not suggesting that any members of either of the Corporations are dishonest. What I am saying is that the way in which this thing has gone reminded me of the wonderful way in which the schemes of those gentlemen went in the past.

Mr. Griffiths: The very fact that the hon. Member associated members of the Corporation, by implication, with the people he mentioned, is, I think, a reflection, and I therefore ask whether he would like to withdraw it now.

Mr. Hurd: If I had said what the right hon. Gentleman alleges I said, of course I would withdraw, but if he will look in HANSARD he will see what I did say.

Mr. Griffiths: Very well, we will leave it there, but the clear impression in my mind was that the hon. Member compared them with the gentlemen to whom he referred.

Mr. Drayson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any papers in connection with the Gambia Egg Scheme have been put before the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will he give an answer?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter for the Corporation; that is not a matter for the Secretary of State to decide. If hon. Members will wait a moment I will discuss what is my relationship and the relationship between the Colonial Office and this Corporation, as was agreed upon in this House when the Bill was passed and, indeed, was urged upon us by hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is why I want to raise it now.
I think we must remember that it was the clear intention of Parliament, when


the Colonial Development Corporation was set up that it should be given a large measure of freedom in the control of its operations. The view was expressed by hon. Members opposite, as I shall quote in a moment, that it was very essential that the Colonial Development Corporation should be allowed to operate freely without too much Whitehall control. May I quote to the House the words of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire? This is what he said on 6th November, 1947, when the Bill under which the Colonial Development Corporation was set up was under discussion in the House. These are the proposals in the Bill which, since then, have been operated in the relationship between the Corporation, the Colonial Office, Government and Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman then said:
My second criticism of these proposals is that they look like having far too much Whitehall in them…we are most anxious that these corporations should not take a rigid or a bureaucratic form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 2107.]
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman then had in mind that the Corporation should have the utmost freedom to carry on its work with the minimum of interference from Whitehall, and, presumably, from the Colonial Office and the Secretary of State. I take it that that is his view.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the right hon. Gentleman has asked me the question, I would say that that would certainly be my view if, as did not happen before, a Socialist Minister had not been appointed Chairman of the Corporation.

Mr. Griffiths: That is completely begging the question. Does it apply now, when the Chairman is not a Socialist?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No.

Mr. Griffiths: Oh, I see. The present Chairman is not a Socialist. Is the hon. Member suggesting that the politics of the Chairman shape the relations between the Corporation and the Secretary of State? It shows how absurd it is. The hon. Gentleman is running away from what he has said.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald)—[Interruption.] I am quoting one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, if he will allow me. The House wants to listen, if he does not:

I have always felt that a Colonial Development Corporation or board was the proper method of developing the Colonial Empire.…I have also felt that colonial development should be run by business men who understand business and finance. I have the greatest admiration for civil servants, especially those who give their lives to the Colonial Civil Service.. but I have always felt, and still feel, that civil servants, by their training and by their tradition, are not fitted to run business, nor do they wish to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 2074–5.]
That was the view accepted by the House. It was also the intention of the Government in the formulation and presentation of the Bill, and the relationship between the Corporation and the Government and Parliament is based on that understanding. I should like to explain to the House what it is. It is of importance in the future, for if the attitude taken this afternoon is the attitude of the Opposition the House must reconsider the relationship between the Corporation and the Government.
Under the Act the responsibility for the investigation, formulation and carrying out of the Corporation's undertakings rests with the Corporation itself. The Secretary of State has a general responsibility which I might summarise as the responsibility for ensuring that the Corporation's activities are in line with colonial policy, and in keeping with the general public interest. But the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office do not intervene in the day-to-day administration of the Corporation, or in its formulation and preparation of individual schemes.
It is, of course, true that the Corporation obtains its capital from advances made by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Treasury. Advances are made on the basis of applications submitted by the Corporation for my approval in respect of each scheme. While my approval is by no means automatic so far as considerations of general policy are concerned, it is the Corporation's own responsibility to satisfy itself as to the technical and commercial merits of a scheme. The Colonial Office does not make any detailed investigations itself into these matters. I should like the House to be clear about this. If the Secretary of State and the Government are to be held responsible for the detailed technical and commercial considerations of every scheme that is submitted, then


the Secretary of State, and the Department over which he presides, must satisfy themselves upon those detailed technical and commercial considerations.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I am ready to give way at the proper time, but I want the House to face this fact and the realities of the case. This scheme 'began three years ago when my distinguished predecessor occupied this office. I have occupied it since and the relationship has been the same. We have carried out what we understood is the Act, and not only the Act, but the intention of the House in passing the Act; and, therefore, the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office has been that of the general policy, and the Board has been responsible for the detailed investigation, formulation and carrying out their scheme.
That is the relationship which has been established. In view of this attack, which is an attack upon the Government, because we see this afternoon—[Interruption.] Do I understand that the Opposition propose another change of Government, which heaven forbid? This relationship was created in 1948. The Opposition did not vote against the Bill; they voted for it; and on the understanding I have indicated is based the relationship with this Corporation of the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office. Do I now understand that it is suggested that relationships should be changed?

Mr. W. Fletcher: Mr. W. Fletcher rose——

Mr. Griffiths: Do they now suggest that the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office, whenever a scheme is submitted by the Corporation, should be satisfied in detail on all the technical and commercial considerations, in any given scheme? I shall give way in a minute but I am repeating a question, because it is important. If they do then I must say this to the House: that the Colonial Office is not equipped to do that and if the Colonial Office and the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, is to be held responsible for doing it, the Colonial Office must be equipped to carry out that duty. So far, it has worked on the assumption that

the responsibility assumed was implicit in the Bill and accepted by the House and that has operated ever since. Do the Opposition suggest that in future the Secretary of State must make himself responsible for all the technical and commercial considerations before a scheme is arranged?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the relationship, but what we do take exception to, and what I repeated in my speech, is the constantly misleading information given by the Minister to Parliament. Whoever has been advising him, he has given the information, and he must accept the responsibility.

Mr. Griffiths: Let me make this perfectly clear. All the information on the Corporation's schemes given by Ministers in this House is received from the Corporation—[HON. MEMBERS:"NO."]—all the information given in answer to Questions and in debates is information supplied by the Corporation.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The Minister ha:
talked the whole time about the examination of the scheme at its inception. Will he say, if it is indeed the fact that he has received a large quantity of information about the scheme going wrong, as indeed was received about the Groundnut Scheme and about this scheme, at what moment it is his duty, having a financial responsibility, to intervene and tell this House? Is it when the scheme starts going wrong that the relationship between the Minister and the Corporation comes into it, or is he proposing to shelter himself behind this facade and not give the House the truth about things?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not sheltering myself behind anything. I am stating what was the accepted view. If that relationship is to be changed the Secretary of State must have available in his Department the staff required in order to carry out all this investigation. On the other hand, if any outside information at any time comes to me and the Colonial Office about any of the schemes it is our duty—and we should do it at once—to bring it to the attention of the Board.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely interesting point. Is not this parallel with civil aviation where we have the


B.E.A.C. and the British Overseas Airways Corporation, two bodies set up by the Government, and we have in this House a Parliamentary Secretary who answers for those two Corporations? Surely it is the same in this case.

Mr. Griffiths: I should not like to compare them in detail. I should not like to trust to my memory, but, roughly speaking, the relationship between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Overseas Development Corporation is similar to the relationship between the Minister of Civil Aviation and those Corporations.
I have described what has been, for the last three years ever since the Corporation was set up, the distribution of responsibility between the Corporation, the Board, the Colonial Office and the Government. That has been perfectly well understood by the Board as well as by the Government. Therefore, I suggest that if the view now being put forward is that the Secretary of State must hold himself responsible, then the whole conception of the original scheme has been changed. The Secretary of State, if he is to be held responsible, must also have authority.
I put a second question. If the Secretary of State and the Government are to be held responsible, is it suggested that the Secretary of State shall have power to determine himself whether a particular scheme shall go on or not? Is he to have power to overrule and to veto the decisions of the Corporation? That would be precisely the reverse of what this House has urged upon us. It has always been suggested that the consideration of this scheme from the technical and commercial point of view should be left to the Corporation.
I think that the present arrangement is the right one. It is the one urged by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and indeed by almost every hon. Member opposite. I gather from the speeches today that hon. Members opposite say that this is the fault of the Administration; the fault of Socialist planners; the fault of the Government. Is it, therefore, the view of the House now that, if a scheme of this kind fails, the Government are to be held responsible for all the technical and commercial considerations which hitherto, on what we regarded was the understanding of the House and the inter-

pretation of the Bill, we have left to the Corporation? Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. When a Bill is before the House they cannot say, "Trust the Board; leave it to the businessmen," and then, when there is a failure, say, "It is not the fault of the businessmen: it is the politicians." That is trying to have it both ways, and they cannot do that.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not preclude himself from judging whether this Corporation is, for example, going too fast and trying too many schemes? Surely, at some point he must come in on behalf of this House and tell them to stop?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a general question. I said something about that when we had a discussion in this House last October. When I said that a new Chairman would be taken on, I made reference to that. That is not the question we are discussing today. We are discussing a Motion by the Opposition about a certain scheme which is still under consideration by the Board.

Mr. Gammans: If he does not take responsibility for the work of the Corporation, does the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for the statements that he and his hon. Friends made in this House to the effect that this scheme was going well until last October?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. We take full responsibility for that. I am sure that earlier the hon. Gentleman heard me say where the information came from.
I want to answer this Motion quite clearly. Suppose by any chance this Motion were carried, and suppose that it was treated by the Opposition as a vote of censure. On whom is it a vote of censure; on the Secretary of State, or on the Corporation? Are we to understand that a vote of censure of that kind would also be a vote of no confidence in the Chairman and members of the Board of the Corporation? I put these questions very frankly because, the position having been accepted with the consent of everyone—it runs right through the debate we had last October—now, for purely partisan advantage, the Opposition have taken up this attitude.
I turn to the history of this scheme in the Gambia. Let me preface my remarks


by saying that the scheme is still under consideration by the Corporation, as I have already announced. They have not reached a conclusion about it. They have not submitted a further report to me and, therefore, what I am about to say will be said in the setting that there is a further report to come from the Board. When that report is submitted to me, I shall make a further statement to the House.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the Act and of the intentions of the House. Up to that stage we are agreed. I should like to know at what stage the Secretary of State comes in. Is it if anyone is suspicious; if it can be proved that the Chairman of the Board is not acting in accordance with his instructions, or if his relationships with the Board are not as they should be?

Mr. Griffiths: If that question arises at any time, then obviously I would have responsibility, for I have the responsibility for appointing the Chairman and indeed the members of the Board. Therefore, they are responsible to me.
I was about to give in outline the history of this scheme. The Gambia is one of our oldest African Colonies and one of our poorest, and it presents one of our biggest problems. There are 300,000 people there and it has no mineral wealth. It supports its population mainly, indeed almost entirely, on subsistence agriculture and on one single cash crop. In my view, and I take it is the view of the House, the Gambia is one of those Colonies in which the problem of poverty is most urgent and in which, therefore, there are people who deserve our help as quickly as possible. With this in mind, because we had submitted a full report to the Corporation, in April, 1948, as the Corporation's initial project, Lord Trefgarne sent a mission to the territory to examine the possibility of establishing a large-scale poultry farm.

Mr. Hurd: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how Lord Trefgarne got this bright idea, to start with?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not know. It begins with the sending of this mission. I am telling the House the outline of the history of this scheme. I do not know the answer. Perhaps the hon. Member knows.

Mr. Hurd: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not.

Mr. Hurd: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths: If he wants to tell us, the hon. Gentleman can do so. Is he suggesting that there is something sinister about it?

Mr. Hurd: No. I thought that perhaps the House had never heard the story.

Mr. Griffiths: I am telling the story. In April, 1948, the mission went out to the Gambia. The mission consisted of an American with long experience of large-scale poultry rearing in the Bahamas, and an accountant from the staff of the Corporation. They went out, and they submitted a favourable report upon a project for a scheme such as the one we are now discussing.

Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the idea of bringing in the American was first suggested to the Corporation?

Mr. Griffiths: No. I am now dealing with the history of the scheme from April, 1948, when the first step was taken.
On 12th July, 1948, the Corporation submitted to the Secretary of State an application for sanction for £500,000 for clearing 10,000 acres of bush and the establishment of a farm primarily devoted to the production of eggs and poultry. The Gambia Government welcomed the scheme, and, after consultation with the Treasury, sanction was given by the Secretary of State on 21st July, 1948.
Within this first sanction of £500,000, the Corporation obtained direct Treasury authorisation for dollar expenditure which ultimately reached 297,538 dollars, mainly for heavy equipment and for initial supplies of special poultry equipment and hatching eggs from a proved tropical strain. Clearing started in October, 1948, and, as it proceeded, the Board reported that more tractors had become necessary. It was therefore decided, on 18th March, 1949, to give sanction for a further sum of £200,000.
The initial hatchings in the spring of 1949 were said to be reasonably successful, and, by July, 1949, the site was about three-quarters cleared and 3,500 acres had been sown for a variety of food crops. Then, in August, 1949, the Cor-


poration applied for a further £110,000 of working capital, which it then estimated would be sufficient to carry on the scheme until September, 1950. By that time, the Corporation expected, and indeed so informed me, that the scheme would be self-supporting and, therefore, on 31st August, 1949, that sanction was given, bringing the total capitalisation to £810,000.
In March, 1950, the first serious difficulties were encountered with the discovery that the first season's crops had been a failure. In other respects, it was stated that land clearance and building construction were almost completed, and that a temporary egg fertility set-back was then being overcome. In July, 1950, a review by the Corporation showed that there were healthy flocks of 79,000 birds, and there began small-scale shipments to our own country. The management reported in July, 1950, that they were confident that the right crops would be grown, and, against this background of what appeared to be substantial, if uneven, progress, approval was given on 22nd August, 1950, for a temporary loan of £100,000 as being the final requirements before the project would become self-supporting. Altogether, £832,509 had been withdrawn by 31st December, 1950.
A further report to the Board in October, 1950, showed that a severe outbreak of fowl typhoid had cost 30,000 birds, and that hatchings had dropped steeply. Most serious of all, sowing had been unsuccessful, and low crop yields were bound to result. It has been quite clear from the beginning that the economics of the scheme were based upon the practicability of growing in the Gambia itself the foodstuffs required for the farm.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way for a moment? It is a rather important point. Was there any effort made at the outset to satisfy the Board that these crops could be grown on that soil, because that is really the gravamen of the whole position?

Mr. Griffiths: I have said that the mission that went out was composed of the American, to whom reference has been made and who himself had been for several years a poultry breeder on a large scale, and an accountant, and that they made a report that they considered——

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Was any soil analysis made?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a minute, I shall come to that.
In December, 1950, a further comprehensive review was made by the Board, they decided on a change of management, and sent out a mission to report. It was a mission composed of employees of the Board. As I told the House on 28th February, we received a preliminary unfavourable report from the mission early in February, and that report on future crop prospects made it necessary for the Board to reconsider the future of the scheme.
Now I come back to where I began, when I told the House that the Board are considering the future of the scheme in the light of further reports submitted by the mission which had been sent out, and, in fact, while we are having this debate. That is the position. The Board are still considering the report of the mission, and, in due course, they will complete their consideration, and will report to me and I shall make a statement to the House. I put this again to the House, because I think it is a perfectly fair point. This is not the time at which we ought to debate this matter, because I have not received the further report, and, therefore, I have given the House today all the information I have received from the Corporation. When I receive further information, then I shall convey it at once to the House.
In reply to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock), I would say that the project was started at a time when there was no experience of mechanical farming or of rotational cropping in the Gambia. About a year ago, a soil scientist was appointed to the Medical Research Council's establishment in the territory. His preliminary report, which became available last month, suggests that there are basic deficiencies in the soil which, until remedied, must prevent any successful rotational cropping. These conclusions are bound to effect the Board's consideration of the future of the scheme. I am giving the House the actual information; I am trying to give the chronological history of the scheme.
The question has been asked whether this scheme should have been launched


in this way, or whether it would have been better and more desirable to have launched a pilot scheme. That is the problem. I shall come back to the question of the relationships in a moment. It is important for us to consider who should decide whether there should be a pilot scheme or not. Is it the Board? [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] That is unfair and meaningless. Who has to decide? I am asking the question, because it is fundamental to the problem. I am not going to allow hon. Members opposite, for party ends, to get away from that problem, because it is important and because they accepted the scheme.
I ask again—Who is going to decide whether there should be a pilot scheme or not? So far, in the three years during which the Corporation has been in existence, it has been definitely understood that that is a matter for them to decide. If this House now wants the Secretary of State to decide, very well, then, we must change the whole conception of the scheme.

Mr. Granville: Surely, this is simple. Would it not be a proper policy to send a directive from the Colonial Office to the Corporation on all these schemes of policy to the effect that where the taxpayer is footing the bill, no grandiose scheme or capital investment in a big way should be embarked upon until proper pilot schemes have been tried?

Mr. Griffiths: So far, we have taken the view that this is a matter which should be left to the Corporation to decide. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies is to decide, then this House must realise what that means. In that event, I, as Secretary of State, shall ask, in fairness to my Department, for permission to equip the Colonial Office to do the job. I shall have to have people in the Colonial Office with technical, scientific and commercial knowledge in order to advise me on such matters. But, so far, the whole conception has been that these matters should be left to the Corporation. Indeed, hon. Members opposite have repeatedly said that the Board should do their own job.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Would it not have been prudent for the Corporation, before deciding on this scheme, to have consulted the right hon. Gentleman's own

technical staff who know Africa well, and who, I have no doubt, would have counselled prudence?

Mr. Griffiths: It is perfectly clear that the Corporation can at any time consult the Colonial Office concerning any available information and advice about the Colonial Territories, Gambia and elsewhere, and also seek the advice and guidance of its advisers. But, having sought that advice, where necessary, the decision about the scheme is still the responsibility of the Board itself.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that on this Colonial Development Corporation, there was one of the greatest experts on Colonial agriculture, my friend the late Sir Frank Stockdale, who was also a practical man?

Mr. Griffiths: The late Sir Frank Stockdale was indeed one of the members of the Board who approved this scheme, but I made no reference to him for the reason that my hon. Friend pointed out.
The Colonial Development Corporation has now been in existence for three years, and, as I have already said, has some 50 schemes in operation. We discussed this question in the debate last October and also the question as to whether the Corporation ought to pause or not. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), was one of the people who continually urged that. I then indicated to the House that, when appointed, the new Chairman would himself want to give early consideration to the future organisation of the Corporation, first, regarding whether there should be a pause, and, secondly, whether the organisation needed to be changed in some way. We discussed the question whether it was essential to have devolution.
There is also the question, which will have to be discussed at some time, though not at the moment, as to the future of these schemes. Indeed, one of the Amendments I had to consider last week was from hon. Members opposite to the effect that these schemes should be disposed of to private enterprise. But these schemes are in territories which are growing up in varying stages, and which will, we hope, eventually be self-governing, democratic territories, and that question has to be considered. But the most immediate question is that of organisation. I


know that the new Chairman has been devoting himself to these problems, and, indeed, when he was appointed, I discussed the matter with him.
As I have said, we have now had three years' experience, and the Corporation has 50 schemes running in 20 territories, which is a big undertaking requiring an enormous amount of care and supervision. The Chairman is giving very careful consideration to what changes are required, and what form those changes shall take. He has already indicated to me that he hopes that the consideration which he and other members of the Board are giving to this matter will soon reach a stage that will enable him to give some indication in the Annual Report regarding the changes which they think desirable.
But those are changes in the organisation of the Board itself, in London and in the Colonial Territories. The Board is not considering—indeed, it has no right to consider—whether the fundamental relationship between the Board, the Colonial Office and the Government should be changed, because that is a matter for this House of Commons to decide. By moving this Motion, the Opposition have implied that they now want the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Government to assume full responsibility for all details. That being so, I say that the Opposition ought to be honest about it, because such a change would be a fundamental one in the relationship; it would change that relationship completely in a most radical manner.

Mr. Gammans: Mr. Gammans rose——

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again.
When the report is published in a very short time, the House will have the opportunity of reading about all these schemes in these 20 territories, and of reading the Chairman's views about the future organisation of the Corporation. We can then discuss those matters. But, in the meantime, I should have thought that the right course for this House to adopt was to await the further report of the Corporation on this scheme, about which we have so far received only a preliminary report, and upon which I promised this House to make a statement as

soon as I received it. I should have thought that if the Opposition were sincere in their desire—as was stated by an hon. Member opposite last October—to keep colonial debates free from a party controversy, they would have done so on this occasion, instead of subordinating the occasion to party advantage by asking the House to accept the Motion.

Mr. Drayson: I put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman, who indicated that he would reply to it. Apparently, the answer he gave referred to the relationship between his Department and the Corporation. However, I will put the question to him again, because I am sure he must have information on the point. Can he say whether papers dealing with this scheme, and dealing with one of the senior officials connected with the scheme, have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Mr. Griffiths: I thought I had replied to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what has happened in that respect, and, in any case, it is not a matter for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If hon. Members will wait a bit, I would point out that the man in question, to whom, I assume, the hon. Member is referring, is an employee of the Board. He is not an employee of mine. If anything has happened—and I have never heard of this suggestion before—the relationship is between the Board and the Corporation. What they do about their employees is a matter for them to decide because they are the authority.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: The Secretary of State for the Colonies complained about the Opposition raising this matter now. Whatever he may say, I am quite sure that the taxpayer is intensely interested in how nearly £1 million of his money advanced by the Treasury to the Corporation has been used, and if we are not to give half a day to a matter of this importance, then I think we are failing in our duty as His Majesty's Opposition. No organ of the Press, so far as I know, has said that this is an improper matter for the House to consider. I would like to say more in reply to the Secretary of State, but I promised to be extremely brief because other hon. Members want to speak.
I happen to have important and even sensational information which was given to me by a constituent of mine, an Englishman who was employed on this scheme until early last year. I think it will interest the House. This information shows very serious mismanagement. I have seen and cross-examined this gentleman and I believe the information he gives is true. I am going to put half a dozen questions to the Government. I have already given written notice of them to the Secretary of State.
I shall put my questions in logical sequence, from the clearing of the bush for sowing the feedingstuffs up to the provision of refrigerating plant for the eggs and poultry, which unfortunately were conspicuous by their absence. First, clearing. I am told that clearing by Corporation tractors worked out at £27 an acre. That included removing the tree stumps, but later contracts were made with African contractors for clearing at £3 an acre. It is quite true that this did not include clearing tree stumps, but it was perfectly possible to sow by hand between tree stumps and, as it turned out, sowing by hand proved to be the better process. I should like to know whether that is correct.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) pointed out, the hopes of revenue from hardwood timber were falsified. The reason was that trees of sufficient size to be marketable were so few and far between that it was economically unprofitable to make the necessary roads and so on to remove them. That is admitted in the Corporation's Report, but why was the yield so badly over-estimated? Was there ever a proper survey?
Now I come to sowing. The Secretary of State admitted just now that it was unsuccessful. I can tell him why. I am told that sowing by Corporation machinery was delayed until some weeks after the rains had begun, with the result that the caterpillars which breed at that time came out of the adjoining bush and played havoc among the young shoots of hergari, guinea corn, hybrid corn and koos. On the other hand, the Africans who sowed by hand just before the rains had much greater success, because by the time the caterpillars appeared the plants were too strong to be attacked. In other

words, the caterpillars by-passed the native plantations and—I was going to say they made a bee-line—they made directly for the Corporation plantations.
Another fault in sowing was that, as I am told, the supervision of the machinery was totally inadequate and therefore the machinery was not properly used. Native sowing by hand was much more successful. The net result is that it was a waste of money to buy the machinery at all. The Secretary of State said there were basic deficiencies of the soil. I doubt very much whether that is so. I believe, on my information, that even now hand labour could produce the necessary feedingstuffs.
Then I come to the arrival of the Rhode Island fowls. We were informed by the Corporation, in May, 1949, that they were then shortly expecting them. I do not know when they actually arrived but I am told that right up to the early part of 1950—I suppose long after they arrived—there was no veterinary surgeon in residence. I should like to know whether that is correct. My last point but one is about refrigeration. I understand that the refrigeration engineer sent out from England arrived long before the plant and that he had nothing whatever to do, that after he went home the plant broke down. One serious mistake was that no preparation had been made for adequate supplies of water for the plant.
Lastly, it is well known, but I do not think that it has been much mentioned in the debate so far, that there was great friction between Mr. Philips, who put the idea of the scheme into the head of Lord Trefgarne in a hotel in the Bahamas, and his staff. It was a common joke among the European staff in the Gambia that three seats were permanently reserved on homeward-bound aircraft for people who would be sacked before the aircraft left.
I suggest that the information I have given shows that the dissatisfaction of the staff was well founded. It is clear that when in 1950 the Corporation reported that the scheme was soundly conceived and well executed they were wrong. I should be glad if the Minister, when he comes to reply, will answer the questions of which I have given notice.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before I became a Member of this House it was my duty to undertake great re-


sponsibility in constructional work of a large nature and, as a result of many years experience, I found that if one made a mistake the best policy was to admit it right away and to try to make amends for it. All people of goodwill in our country must agree that there is great need for a body or institution like the Colonial Development Corporation. One of the most urgent needs of mankind is to develop as quickly as we possibly can backward areas throughout the world.
Therefore, the ideas behind the setting up of the Colonial Development Corporation should receive the good will of all people and their whole-hearted support. But if we agree with that line of reasoning it means that as soon as any suspicion arises it is our duty to take action right away in order that the institutions should not be unnecessarily prejudiced. It is on that basis that I want to make some observations and to ask some questions.
Before I proceed to ask questions may I remind the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary of one thing. Before the war it used to be the duty of Ministers who were replying to a debate to reply to important points made by speaker after speaker. Since the termination of hostilities that, in the main, has no longer been the practice. If we are to get the best out of our debates in the House of Commons and if the country is to judge issues correctly, I suggest the time has arrived when that pre-war practice should be followed again so that when we interrogate Ministers—and the right to interrogate Ministers is a great constitutional right of British democracy—and debates take place in the House Ministers should reply to point after point.
I have been thinking about this for along time. Last week a number of us on these benches felt most humiliated because very serious allegations were made from the Opposition Front Bench and no attempt was made to reply to them. I am very concerned about this, not only from a national point of view but from the point of view of our Socialist Party. If we are to defend our Ministers in the country, if we are to defend the policy for which they are responsible, then debates, and especially serious allegations, should be replied to at the time, point by point.
It is not necessary to say anything about the ideas which lie behind this

scheme. I wish to save time—I want to ask a large number of questions tonight—and, therefore, I am satisfied to rely on the leading article in "The Times" today which dealt with this matter. Perhaps I may remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the "Manchester Guardian" also devoted a leading article to the question in which it said:
When the House of Commons debates the failure of the Colonial Development Corporation's scheme of poultry-farming it is to be hoped that criticism will be specific and precise.
We have not had that specific and precise criticism so far.
The questions I want to ask are these. How did Mr. Phillips come to be appointed manager of the Gambia scheme? Where was he appointed? Who recommended him? Is it a fact that the appointment and the proposal were made in the Bahamas? Is it a fact that a settlement was reached there on the basis of a salary of £2,000 a year plus a bonus? Is it a fact that, after all that had been arranged, the late Chairman then came to the Board, asked for their approval and strongly recommended it? Was it in order for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to make arrangements for the Gambia scheme, to make the appointments and fix the salaries without consultation with the Board?
Is it a fact that the Board were consulted after the appointments and salaries had been fixed? Is it a fact that Sir Ernest Wood and Dr. Fowler reported to the late Chairman of the Board their grave misgivings about the Gambia scheme and that that information was never passed on to the Board? Did the late Chairman insist to the end that all was well with the scheme? I hope I am not wasting my time in asking these questions. Have Sir Ernest Wood and Dr. Fowler stated that they were most unhappy about the scheme for some time? If so, was that unhappiness reported to the Board? Is it a fact that not one adverse report about the scheme was put before the Board until the late Chairman was about to retire? If not, what is the explanation? Is it the case that members of the Board complained at meetings of the Board of their concern, with the result that the late Chairman agreed to conduct an investigation?
Did he report that all was well and that in that view he had the support of the


"Daily Express," which had sent out an investigator of their own because of the suspicions which were prevalent in high circles in London in which we do not move? Did he then suggest transferring Mr. Phillips to another job in the Bahamas? Are there any names recorded in the minutes indicating dissent and uneasiness about the scheme? If we cannot tonight have an answer to any of the other questions, can we have an answer to that? I repeat it—are there recorded in the minutes of the Board's meetings anything indicating dissent and uneasiness about the scheme?
In view of the fact that Mr. Phillips was receiving a salary of £2,000, why was he promised a substantial bonus? The engineers would be very interested in the answer to that question. What was the amount of the bonus which he was to receive? Can we have produced the minutes of the Board's meetings after the appointment of Lord Reith—and let me make an appeal to the House that I hope not one word will be said which will reflect in any way upon the new Chairman, whose public spirit is acknowledged throughout the country by all people who have had any relationship with him. Did several members of the Board insist on an investigation after the appointment of Lord Reith and is it a fact that Lord Reith immediately undertook to conduct that investigation? Is it a fact that after the proved failure of the scheme it was then suggested that Mr. Phillips should be given another appointment at a salary of £2,000 a year? Is it the case that only five weeks ago it was proposed to transfer Mr. Phillips to take charge of farming operations in the Bahamas?
On what date did the Minister hear about these difficulties and these suspicions? What action did he take? Did he see the late Chairman and, if so, what was said? Does the Minister consider that the relationships between the Chairman and the Board are satisfactory? If not, what action has been taken or what action is it intended to take?
In conclusion I would say that I believe the idea of a Colonial Development Corporation to be a good one. Those of us who were cradled in this Party, and who heard those who have given their lives to it, know that for 20 or 30 or 40 years

we have advocated what has now been proved correct—the urgent need for the development of the backward areas of the world. We know that throughout the world there are men and women as good as any of us, who are living on next to nothing and who have never had a chance. The time has arrived when, if the world is to save itself from terrible catastrophe, we must embark on large-scale development of this kind.
Those of us who hold those views most strongly, should be as alert as possible in order to see that, as soon as anything of this character occurs, we unveil it in the House of Commons in order that immediate action can be taken to ensure that our ideas shall not be prejudiced amongst our own people and throughout the world.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: When the Secretary of State was replying to the Motion he accused us of making a party issue of this subject and of using it to attack the Government. He must have had his thoughts on that point set completely at rest by the remarks he has just heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It is quite clear that uneasiness about this scheme and disgust at the waste of public money is widespread throughout the country and we are doing no more than our proper duty, as an Opposition, in expressing the views of people outside and in giving the House the opportunity of discussing the subject.
The Secretary of State raised a difficult point as to what should be the proper relationship between himself and the Colonial Development Corporation, and I do not doubt that when my right hon. and gallant Friend winds up the debate he will have some penetrating remarks to make on that point. But it is only fair to say that we are still in the realm of experiment here. This big idea of a Colonial Development Corporation, of which we are all in favour, is a new idea and we have to find out what is the best way of proceeding. Quite clearly, however, somebody has to be responsible when large sums of public money are lost. We have done what seems to me the most straightforward thing we can by raising the subject today. Personally, I think that in the ordinary run of affairs the Corporation must be responsible for


the detailed work, but at some point the Minister must accept responsibility for the money which he takes on his Vote for the Corporation. That is the real reason why we are moving this Motion today.
I should like to make one comment about the brief history of this story given by the Secretary of State. It concerns the visit of the survey party to Gambia early in 1948—that of Mr. Phillips and the accountant. How long did they stay in the Gambia? Am I right in saying that they stayed under a week? Am I right in saying that the whole of this vast scheme was surveyed in that short time by two men who had never been there before, that they came back home, drew up a detailed scheme, and set it before the Corporation, and that on that basis alone, the decision was taken to spend nearly £1 million of public money? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will answer that point when he winds up the debate. My information is that they were there for under a' week, and I think it is quite reasonable for us to come here today and say to the Government, "You are spending public money. You are spending the taxpayers' money, and we are just doing the best we can on behalf of the involuntary shareholders in this scheme to say what we think about the way in which you have spent it."
My own view of the schemes of the Corporation is quite definite. I do not think it should develop commercial units. I believe that that is the job of the private traders. By all means let the Corporation develop research stations, and so on, and if as a result, it is possible to justify the technical possibility of development, then the time has come for it to develop basic services of water and electricity supplies, and of communications; and when it has thus prepared the land, then let the private traders, either in the colony concerned or here, go in to develop the land. It may take more than this scheme before hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite learn that public corporations are just not constitutionally capable of bearing a trading risk. I shall have something more to say of that in a moment.
I should like to make one or two comments on the technicalities of the scheme itself. It was, as we have been told, to produce the large quantity of 20 million

eggs a year and many head of poultry. If one were starting out on a scheme of that kind the first two things to ask would be: first, is it possible to grow feedingstuffs there? If so, what crops will grow? Second, is it possible to manage large-scale flocks of poultry in that climate in healthy production? The normal approach to the first question would have been to have made inquiries from the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, from its stations out on the West Coast, in Nigeria, and so on—to have asked them what sort of crops could be grown.
I do not believe any of these inquiries were made at all. Having got some information of what might be expected, the next thing would have been to set up a pilot scheme to see what could be grown; and the same with the poultry. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman's Department probably does not own large poultry units out in West Africa, but some information could have been obtained from other authorities, even in this country. So far as I know, no inquiries of that sort have been made.
What, in fact, did happen? We know that they started off without any consultation at all, and with the smallest possible survey of this huge scheme; and the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) has made on the Report of the Medical Research Station are the most damning comments the Government could possibly hear, because from them we see perfectly plainly that there is only the smallest possibility of feeding the poultry, and that in trying to do so, the Corporation would be really endangering the lives of the natives themselves.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of what the hon. Gentleman is saying now, I wonder if he would allow me to quote something that he said before? Perhaps he will now explain what he did not say then. This is what he said in the debate on the Colonial Development Corporation in October:
I believe from what I have heard that there are real possibilities in the scheme. This is no groundnut scheme. There are real, intrinsic possibilities of developing large-scale poultry farming. I understand that the climate for about half the year is good, and although I see that the Report for 1948 says that it is not suitable for Europeans, I am still convinced of the possibilities of this project. I believe the soil is fertile. I understand the rainfall is sufficient"—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman said:
…the rainfall is sufficient on average, although it is sometimes rather a lot and sometimes rather little."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT. 19th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2310.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he is no longer of the opinion that he expressed in the debate last October?

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Gentleman has now had a chance to make his speech, and I am sure he is grateful that I gave way. In my speech last October I shot, as it were, at a still flying bird, and it is true that I only winged it; but the hon. Gentleman has not pointed out that I went on to say—and it was the main basis of my comment then—that in the best possible estimation it would be impossible to grow more than a quarter of the feedingstuffs required for the scheme.

Mr. Crossman: Wise after the event.

Mr. Nugent: In regard to the management of the poultry, I assumed it was a reasonable thing to put some credence in the Report. As far as we knew, the poultry got through the first year without encountering any serious disaster.
However, let me return to the comments I was making. Thousands of acres were cleared, and cleared in the most ignorant fashion. Here, I think, it is pertinent to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact, that the tree clearing team who were out there, of some 70 members—the whole lot of them—were sacked within 12 months of starting. They sent a petition back to the Corporation, which was received early in 1949, complaining about the insufferable conditions, particularly of management, they were enduring there.
As a result of that, I understand, Sir Henry Wood went out to try to pour oil on the troubled waters and to soothe labour relations, but finally, within 12 months, I understand, the whole of that tree-clearing team returned to England because the conditions of management were so intolerable to them. That seems to me a very serious affair. One might well be asking, what was the Corporation doing all this time? Was it getting reports? Was it considering circumstances like this very serious matter? Why was

it not exercising some control over the activities of Mr. Phillips, the manager?
The question of the failure of the crops has already been dealt with, but I want to deal with the failure of the chickens. The chickens were laid out on a system there which was suitable for the Bahamas. They were laid out in small units, about 1,500 to the acre, in small, open shelters. In the Bahamas. I imagine, there is a moderate rainfall; they do not have the rate, anyhow, of up to two inches an hour. What happened under the system put down in the Gambia was that infestation from poultry droppings gradually was set up, and when the heavy floods came down, the whole of this area was under water. The chickens were practically floating about. They must have thought by then that they ought to have had ducks instead of chickens.
Not only did they lose a lot that were drowned, but there was started the infection of fowl typhoid. We could have told the management out there that under conditions of heavy density of poultry flocks in high humidity, fowl typhoid does eventuate. It occurs in some Welsh valleys, and in the Orkneys, and generally where there is a heavy rainfall and an intensive layer of poultry droppings. That disease could have been avoided if the best opinion in this country had been consulted before the scheme was laid down. On the rest of the poultry picture, I do believe, to give credit where credit is due, that the strain of the chicken in the first place must have been good, for they have had to put up with a great deal.
To bring these comments on the technical side to a conclusion, I would say that there is only one thing to do now. I understand it is being done. I understand that a man called Mr. Graves is now in charge of the place, and that he is trying to see if it is possible to grow crops. That, of course, is what ought to have been done to start with. He, I understand, is a man of great experience on the West Coast of Africa: he understands what is possible and what is not possible, and in due course we shall have some report, or the Corporation will have, on whether the crops can be grown.
What should be done with the poultry? There are still some there, and the problem of housing them in the wet weather has still to be solved. I think it is


almost certain that it will have to be some sort of intensive system to protect the chickens from this extremely heavy rainfall, and to run on as a pilot scheme at the same time, until the cropping problem is solved. There is just nothing else to be done with it now except what should have been done three years ago when the scheme was originally conceived.
The main point that I wish to get over to the House is that it really is not the job of the State and State corporations to run commercial enterprises. I do not believe that they can be sufficiently conscious of the commercial risks. There is no denying that the main motive for this scheme was not a commercial motive. I do not believe that it was weighed up in the light of commercial considerations. Lord Trefgarne had the idea of a great poultry farm in the Gambia, and after that, the main object of the scheme was to prove that Lord Trefgarne was right. What a motive for spending £1 million!
If an ordinary person is starting a business he must put up his own money; if he has not enough to cover the whole scheme he must borrow the rest. Thereafter in everything he does in developing his business, he is conscious that he is responsible for preserving his own money and the money he has borrowed, and paying interest and repaying the loan finally, and responsible also for winning his own living by making a profit out of the scheme. That means, quite obviously, that he is conscious of the commercial risk all the time he is working the scheme; he has that as the spur both to his endeavour and as the guardian of his judgment to see that he does not spend the money extravagantly. He has, on the other hand, the incentive of making a profitable living.
Is it possible to reproduce those conditions in a public corporation? Quite obviously, it is not. In a public corporation one can never get that live consciousness of the person in his own private concern. Let nobody think for one minute that the average business is a business with millions of pounds behind it. The average business of this country, on which the fabric of our commerce and trade depends, is the small man business, and the small man is the man who has to borrow the money to

start with and is dependent on his profits for his living. The only connection between that sort of management and the management here, is that those men have, by their skilful management, to pay the losses that this kind of scheme makes by its bad management.
I conclude by saying that I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will have realised from this disastrous experiment that it really is not the job of State organisations to set out on commercial units. Let them stick to their proper schemes of research, development and basic services and leave the commercial units to the private trader, and then we shall have success both for them and for the country as a whole.

6.44 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): I am sorry to have to get up as early as this in the debate but, as hon. Members know, it is due to finish at seven o'clock and I have promised to sit down about five minutes before that to give the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) an opportunity to reply. I therefore have a very short time in which to reply to a very large number of questions.
First let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). He, I understand, says that it is the duty of private corporations to engage in such activities as poultry farming—and indeed to engage in all business activities—but it is not the duty of public corporations. I am interested that he should say this, because in this respect he apparently differs from his hon. Friends, all of whom supported the formation of the Colonial Development Corporation which was a public corporation designed for this specific purpose.
I have two other sets of questions to answer in particular, and first I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I am sorry that he gave me no notice of his questions, and as they deal with detailed matters of which only the Board can be expected to have knowledge immediately, and of which neither I nor the Colonial Office can be expected to have detailed knowledge, I cannot reply to the greater number of them. I think it is very much better that the answers to them should be left until we debate the Report of the Corporation.
Far different is the case of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). He had the courtesy to send me the questions he was going to raise. I have been in touch with the Corporation and am able to answer them. I shall answer quite a number of them. First, he asked: Did the clearing by Corporation machinery cost £17 per acre, including the removal of stumps, while later contracts were made for clearing by hand, exclusive of stumps, at £3 per acre. The answer is that the total cost of the clearing including stump removal by Corporation machinery was roughly £17 per acre. A later contract for felling only was made at £4 per acre; that was for felling only and not the removal of stumps, so the two things are not comparable.
His second question was: Did the timber sent to the saw mill ever appear in the accounts?

Mr. Keeling: I did not ask that.

Mr. Dugdale: Another question was: Was the timber sold to an African for export——

Mr. Keeling: I did not ask that either, but let the right hon. Gentleman give the answers because I am sure they will be very interesting.

Mr. Dugdale: I shall be delighted if I am allowed to give the answers because they are answers to questions which the hon. Gentleman, had he had time, would I am sure have asked.

Mr. Keeling: No, that is not correct at all.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman asked: Did the timber sent to the saw mill ever appear in the accounts? That is an important question, the answer to which is that it did appear in the accounts.

Mr. Keeling: That is why I did not ask it.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman found the answer just in time. Another question that he did not ask on the Floor, but of which he gave me notice and which I should like to answer was: Was the timber sold to an African for export to Dakar and sent to Bathurst at heavy cost to the Corporation ever paid for? The answer is: timber was regularly shipped direct to Dakar by the Corporation and successfully sold there.

Mr. Keeling: That is why I did not ask that one.

Mr. Dugdale: I must say, it is a curious state of affairs when my hon. Friend does not give the notice of questions which he is going to ask and the hon. Gentleman does give me notice of questions which he is not going to ask.

Mr. Keeling: May I comment on that? Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to answer only the questions which I asked on the Floor of the House and no others. He seemed to be listening to me, and I put the points very clearly. It does not seem to me that he is entitled to make capital out of answers to questions which I did not ask.

Mr. Dugdale: Well, I have answered quite a number of them. Another question which he definitely asked was: Was there for over a year no vet. on the farm?

Mr. Keeling: No, I did not ask that.

Mr. Dugdale: Well, if the hon. Gentleman did not ask that specifically, he asked about the veterinary advice we had received, and implied——

Mr. Keeling: No. What I said was this. If it is true, as was forecast, that the Rhode Island birds arrived about the middle of 1949, is it correct that there was no vet. there for the whole of the rest of that year?

Mr. Dugdale: The point is that the Corporation did in fact appoint the Animal Health Trust as advisers to the project in December, 1948. The Director of their Poultry Research Station was first called on to visit the farm in March, 1950, when the problem of egg infertility arose due to vitamin deficiencies in the diet. This was remedied. No fowl disease of any kind occurred until August, 1950, when fowl typhoid caused the loss of 30,000 birds before vaccine overcame it.
The Corporation appointed a full-time veterinary officer at the end of 1950. There is a veterinary officer appointed by the Governor of the Gambia who was also consulted as need arose. Broadly speaking, the position is that there is a general practitioner available, and he is consulted in the first instance. If anything occurs which requires the experience of a man who deals specifically in poultry diseases, he is sent for, after the general practi-


tioner has given his opinion. That in fact is what is done in most cases of human disease.
I have answered quite a number of the hon. Gentleman's question. I would in the few minutes available to me like to make one point clear. The whole of this debate on the part of Opposition Members has been designed to cast blame on one man alone—upon the late Chairman of the Corporation, Lord Trefgarne. That has been done deliberately, because hon. Members opposite know that he previously belonged to the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, and that he had been a member of His Majesty's Government. It has been doen for that purpose and that purpose alone.
I want to make this point clear. There are on this Board a number of people with business experience. I make no apology for reading their names. There is, for instance, Mr. Robin Brook, who was a member of the Court of Directors of the Bank of England. There is Mr. Hubert Nutcombe Hume, Chairman of the Charterhouse Investment Trust, Limited, and there was Sir Miles Thomas, Director and General Manager of Morris Commercial Motors.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: What does he know about chickens?

Mr. Dugdale: If I may say so, of all the really childish remarks, I have never before heard one quite as childish as that. These people are appointed for their commercial experience. They take the general responsibility for the commercial management of the Colonial Development Corporation.
I have been asked about technical knowledge. I would remind the House that one of the members of the Corporation was none other than the gentleman now on the Liberal Benches in the House of Lords—Lord Milverton—who was a previous Governor of the Gambia, and who may be expected to have some experience of conditions in the Gambia. All these gentlemen were members of this Corporation, and they share the responsibility. If they said nothing at all and simply sat and waited while the Chairman carried out all these various activities, is it to the credit of these men who represent big business—who represent the business enterprises of which we are told that we should have more in the Colonial Develop-

ment Corporation? These are the men who have been in charge of the Corporation and the men upon whom the responsibility must fall.
I maintain, as the Secretary of State has said, that once these men are appointed it is the duty of the Colonial Office and the duty of my right hon. Friend to leave matters of business administration to them. It is their duty to settle these things. It is their business to deal with the business administration, and if there has been a failure they must accept equal responsibility. I am certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel that if they have a right to attack the Chairman of the Corporation and to place the whole of the blame upon him, it is only fair that these others, who are also members of the Corporation, should bear the burden.
I hope that will be remembered, and I hope that at the same time we shall remember that this is only one scheme. I could go on at great length describing schemes that are being successful; schemes that already are bringing in a profit after such a short time. This particular scheme is only one of many schemes totalling some £30 million and more, and I think, therefore, that for the Opposition to condemn the whole of the work of the Colonial Development Corporation—to pour scorn upon us for this one scheme alone—shows, as my right hon. Friend said, that they initiated this debate for party ends and party ends alone.

6.55 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am very sorry that the debate should have been cut so short owing to our preliminary discussions today, which is certainly not the fault of hon. Members on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, later in the Session, come back to this problem, because it is an important one, and several hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as hon. Members on this side have not had an opportunity of taking part in the debate. I would like to disabuse the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs straight away of the idea that the reason why we are having this debate was because of any personal or party hostility to Lord Trefgarne, the late Chairman. It is not because he was a Labour Member of Parliament or because, before that, he was a Liberal Member of Parliament. In fact, he was our colleague during the war in


the great Coalition, and we remember the work he did there. That has nothing to do with the questions raised today.
Nor, indeed, may I say to the Secretary of State, is it true that those of us who sit on these benches have changed the views which we expressed generally on the question of the Corporation at the time it was set up. We have not differed at all from those views. We agree with what the Secretary of State said, that this Corporation, if it is to be effective in its work, must work without day-to-day detailed control from Whitehall. We are all agreed about that, and nothing that we have said today has been contrary to that. In passing, may I also say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that we wish well to the new Chairman, and realise that, in the short time he has been there, some fresh air has already started moving through the Corporation's headquarters.
The point at issue between the two sides of the House is a very simple one. The right hon. Gentleman said, in so many words, that the Secretary of State should see that the policy of the Corporation is in the public interest. On that we agree with him. The sole point is: When is the Minister to step in if he sees, or has reason to think, that the Corporation's schemes are failing, or that they have not been properly started? Is not there a duty resting on him?

Mr. Griffiths: When he receives the information.

Captain Crookshank: I should have thought that one would take it a little further and that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to keep a general oversight of these matters, and, indeed, to do something which no Socialist Minister, so far as I can see during the whole of the years since 1945, ever has done, namely, to exercise a little imagination, and to say to himself, "I wonder whether so and so is getting along all right. After all, they are using public money and have already had £850,000 for this particular scheme." Is he to wait in his office until such time as he gets a report and only then show any interest?

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that the Colonial Office should appoint inspectors to inspect the schemes?

Captain Crookshank: I am suggesting nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that if we have a Secretary of State, a Minister of State and an Under-Secretary of State personally responsible to the Crown for the general oversight, welfare and development of the Colonial Empire, who may be assisted by the
Corporation set up by the House in a certain part of the work, they must have the final responsibility. There is no question of having inspectors or people from Whitehall going out, turning over the stones and exploring the avenues for them. I am suggesting that it is their direct responsibility to ask how things are going on.

Mr. J. Griffiths: They do.

Captain Crookshank: I am glad to know that, although they do not seem to have done it on this occasion. We have, in this case, £850,000 spent, and the reasons for this——

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that every year the Corporation reports to the Secretary of State and to the House and that their Report was fully debated last October. Therefore, we are kept continually in touch.

Captain Crookshank: It happens to be an inaccurate report according to the further information given to the House on 28th February. Is not the right hon. Gentleman lucky that I am not the Minister of Food and do not say to my interrupters that they are suffering from mental trouble?
That is part of the argument that has been put up, that the information previously given was not ample and was not necessarily entirely correct. Why did it not occur to the Secretary of State in the years when the scheme was going forward to ask what advice had been given, whether any soil tests had been made and whether there were any pilot schemes? Why did they not ask whether any poultry growers in the United Kingdom had been consulted, which, we understand, was not the case? I agree that the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for most of the time but his predecessor, Mr. Creech Jones was. But even if these questions did not occur to them, why did it not cross their minds while this parallel scheme to the Groundnut Scheme was


going on, where the same kind of considerations were cropping up, which was certainly discussed in the House often enough, to say, "From what we have heard about the groundnut people, who did not have any pilot schemes or soil tests or take advice, let us be certain that West Africa is at least doing what East Africa has failed to do?"
We now find that none of these things has happened, which is why we put down this Motion, with which I should have thought every Member could agree. Do
not Members opposite regret the financial losses of this scheme? We do not know how much of this £850,000 is to be written off, but the Secretary of State told us a fortnight ago that it will be a considerable proportion. Surely Members opposite agree with that part of the Motion. They must agree with that still more when they work it out, because on the basis of the expenditure and the number of eggs produced the cost per egg is calculated at £20 15s. 7d. That is a measure of the loss translated into the production of eggs. Surely Members regret this sort of financial loss.
The only other thing we ask them to agree with is that the collapse of the scheme is due to the fact that it had been launched without adequate consultation. That has been agreed. Everyone agrees that there was no consultation—they could not have consultation with the Corporation, because it had not existed long enough; it was a very mysterious arrangement that brought the thing into being. There was certainly no consultation with the poultry keepers, or any preliminary pilot schemes. We know that to be so, because that has also been admitted. We say that there should have been discussions on whether poultry could be kept in healthy production. None of these things happened. It is merely a plain statement of fact.
It is because we are horrified that these sort of things have happened, because there was no one in Government circles

with sufficient interest to ask the Corporation how it was getting on with the scheme to see that it was made a success, that we put the responsibility there. We do not expect them to look at every detail. Let no one be under any illusion that we are in any way denigrating colonial development. It is not enough to label a thing colonial development and then to say that whatever the waste of money and incompetence we must support it because of its label. We have to go a little further than that. No one has been more condemnatory than the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). No one could have criticised the scheme anything like so vigorously from this side. He knows better than anyone else how to criticise the Government, because he has done it before and will no doubt do it again. It must be admitted that there has been failure in the past. Because we consider that the ultimate blame must rest on the Ministers whose constitutional duty it is to see to the welfare and development of the Empire, and not to shield behind corporations, we ask Members to do what I am certain they feel, and that is to express regret at this waste of public money.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that almost every remark he has made would be applicable to the Tory-sponsored scheme of Mona Dam, in Jamaica? In that case there was no pilot scheme and the whole thing was a complete fiasco. There were losses of precisely a similar kind, under a Tory Secretary of State, of some £850,000.

Question put.
That this House regrets the financial losses" caused by the collapse of the Gambia Poultry Scheme, which had been launched without adequate consultation or any preliminary pilot scheme to discover whether the poultry could be kept in healthy production or the necessary feeding-stuffs grown in the Colony.

The House divided: Ayes. 291; Noes, 299.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL STAFF (UNION MEMBERSHIP)

7.18 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move.
That this House regrets the decision of the Durham County Council in insisting on membership of an appropriate professional association or trade union as a condition of employment by that council.
It is now more than four months since the decision, to which we refer in this Motion, was taken by the Durham County Council, and I think I might first remind the House of what has happened during those four months. The Resolution requiring, under threat of dismissal, that every member of the County Council's staff should provide evidence of membership of a trade union, was passed on 1st November last, and was then sent out by the heads of the departments to members of the staff. An emergency committee was formed to see the replies.
On 15th November the matter was raised in the House on the Adjournment by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health replied for the Government. He used these words:
…we regret the resolution passed by the Durham County Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1857.]
The Motion we have put on the Order Paper has the identical words. We have taken them completely from the statement that has already been made on behalf of the Government by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health.
After that, as we know, letters were sent from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education to the county, saying that the Government did not approve of coercion. The reply came from the clerk to the County Council saying that the Council had re-affirmed its resolution. The local branch of the National Union of Teachers advised their members not to answer the question concerning their trade union membership, and that advice was endorsed by the National Executive of the Union. We are told that consultations then took place between the Ministries concerned and the representatives of the County Council.
The dismissals were not enforced on 22nd November, but the resolution was not rescinded. It has not yet been rescinded and the threat remains. It seems to me that the technique in Durham is rather that of the cold war. The threat remains, and we are told that it has been successful. Many more of the staff have joined trade unions. I should like to quote from the "Schoolmaster" of 8th March. It is, as we know, the organ of the National Union of Teachers. It refers to the dismissal of teachers being averted—that was the dismissal which was timed for 22nd November—and it goes on:
Later on, unfortunately it became clear that the Durham County Council was implementing its highly dangerous policy in another way. Evidence was obtained that when candidates were called for an interview, as certain teaching posts fell vacant, they were first required to answer the obnoxious question about their membership of the trade union.
We know of examples of this happening. Most hon. Members have heard of the case when there was a vacancy for the


headmastership of a school. Six applicants were interviewed. They were all asked what the National Union of Teachers calls "the obnoxious question." Five did not answer, saying that they had been advised by their union not to do so. Only one answered and he got the job. We may say that it was a coincidence. Was this man the best man for the job? He may have been, but do hon. Members in any part of the House think that the colleagues of the applicant, when he goes to the school, or anyone else, will really think that he was chosen because he was the best man for the job or because he was the only one who answered the question?
It is surely clear to all of us that applicants for posts who decline to answer questions put to them by the selection committee are putting themselves in a very difficult position, which is certainly detrimental to their chances of success. I will go further and ask the Minister of Education to consider this matter very seriously. Are we to think that the best men and the best women are to be chosen for these jobs, or are we to fear that the schools may be deprived of them because they do not consider that they should answer the question about trade union membership?

Mr. Murray: Does the right hon. Lady know about any other appointments which she could give us, apart from the one that she has given?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have checked this appointment very carefully. I have heard of others, but I want to keep to actual instances which I have checked and of which I know the circumstances. It would be very easy to give other instances, and hon. Members then would be quite right to ask "Do you know the circumstances?" I see that the National Union of Teachers referred to "appointments," in the plural.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the right hon. Lady apply the doctrine that she is condemning to the treatment of a clergyman by the Bishop of Rochester?

Miss Horsbrugh: It would be better if I stuck to the point that we are now discussing and did not try to criticise people, especially those who are in

another place and are not here to answer for themselves.
We agree that these appointments have been made like this. I am certain that every hon. Member agrees that it is not the best way of making appointments. We agree that the schools may be deprived of people who would be able to hold responsible posts and who might be the best people to have them. Apart from the academic attainment of ability to teach or organise a school, how often has it been said in the House that what we want in the schools are men and women of character and resolution?
I would put this to the Minister of Education very seriously. If men and women feel that this question should not be answered, if they have sufficient character and resolution to refuse to answer it, are they to be debarred from the schools of this country? They are being debarred at present from schools in county Durham. We want to make it clear that we believe—and I am certain that the Minister of Education will agree with me—that that is not right. Our opinion ought to go out from this House quite clearly tonight.
This issue is not confined to the teachers, nor, indeed, can it be confined to the county of Durham. Perhaps I might quote again from this article in the "Schoolmaster." I agree with what is stated here. It says:
The union…regard [this issue] as vital not only to the teacher, but to other branches of the local Government service.
They go on to say, later that
it is not enough for the individual teacher to decline to answer the question concerning his or her union, in an interview and to hope that from the strength of the opposition the Durham Council will moderate or rescind its requirements. Further action at the highest level is needed.
Further action at the highest level is necessary, we agree. That is why we have put the Motion on the Order Paper. The House of Commons can express its opinion and its support for the Government's statements about the resolution of the Durham County Council. We alt agree about the autonomy of local authorities, but I suggest that it seems strange that the Government have not been able to induce the local authorities to rescind this resolution. I am certain that they have told us that they are not in favour


of coercion and yet all their efforts seem to have been in vain.
On 4th December, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, then Lord President of the Council, said:
I think the House would be wise to leave it to the Government.
Well, we have left it to the Government for four months, and during those four months there has been intimidation. The resolution still stands and the threat still hangs over the employees of the Durham County Council. Could no more influence be used? The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on that occasion, said:
I know something about the psychology of County Durham."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 24.]
It seems to me that his psychiatric treatment has done no good. But if he did not know all about the psychology of County Durham surely there are those whom he could consult. What about his right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning? Does not he know something about that part of the world? And then the Minister of Defence—that staunch champion in international affairs of freedom and the British way of life. Has he been asked to use his influence, and if he has used it has there been no result? What about the Home Secretary? Could he not have been called in?
If powerful persuasion was needed, surely there is someone, a real expert, who has had more experience in the use of powerful persuasion than anybody else in this House—the Patronage Secretary. What a wealth of local knowledge there was for the Government to use, and not only local knowledge but local talent. It seems to me that it has not been used. It seems to me that never have there been so many people doing so little to deal with a situation which they regret.
What is to happen? We have already said that we agree about the autonomy of local authorities. We are surprised that more influence has not been exerted. We know that a conference is to take place shortly between the National Union of Teachers and the Durham County Council. I believe it is absolutely essential that before that conference takes place our opinion should be made quite clear by this Government and by this House

not only to the National Union of Teachers, not only to the Durham County Council and not only to the people who, because they think it is right are refusing to answer the question, but also to the public as a whole. I agree that the Government have stated that they regret the decision of the Durham County Council. I agree that in their letter they have said they are not in favour of coercion. But I do feel that we want from this House a more definite and clearer expression of our opinion.
We have used, in this Motion, the identical words which the Government have used. I hope the Government will accept it, and I hope it will go out from this House tonight as a unanimous decision of the Government and the House of Commons as a whole, that we regret the resolution which was passed by the Durham County Council. I think also that we should have a perfectly clear statement from the Government that they do oppose intimidation.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Lady ought to be fair on this question of intimidation. Would she ask her hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Ulster why it is necessary for people to state their religion when they vote?

Miss Horsbrugh: We are all opposed to intimidation——

Mr. Mellish: Even in Ulster?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think we are all opposed to it. If the hon. Gentleman is not opposed to intimidation, and if he thinks the resolution is right, he has only got to say so and, if necessary, vote accordingly. I believe that the enormous majority of the House are opposed to intimidation and regret the resolution, and want to see that resolution rescinded. All we ask is that the Government should make their position clear tonight. Statements have been made, but they have not been made clear enough to enable the public to understand the Government's point of view. We must have it from them that they are opposed to intimidation and will support those who resist it.
It seems to me that tyranny and intimidation have spread in other countries not because the majority of the people were willing to acquiesce in the suppression of their freedom, but because they


did not resist and they had no confidence that they would have the support of those in authority if they did resist. That must not happen here.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I beg to move, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
while approving the attitude already adopted by His Majesty's Government, and being anxious not to interfere with the autonomy of local authorities, hopes that the discussions now proceeding between the Durham County Council and some of the associations concerned will lead to an amicable settlement of the points at issue.
May I first express the sorrow of my hon. Friends who represent Durham constituencies at the death of Colonel Vickery? Although he has been a formidable opponent of ours, we are sorry to learn that he has passed away. I should like on behalf of hon. Members on these benches to express our deepest sympathy with his widow and daughter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
We are debating a situation which is described as a "closed shop." I prefer to call it an attempt to get a 100 per cent. trade union membership. As I listened to the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) making an impassioned speech about tyranny and victimisation, it occurred to me that hon. Members opposite must surely have short memories. If ever a party victimised and intimidated working people, they did. I have lived in Durham County all my life. I have been a trade unionist all my life. Durham County is a staunch trade union county. The history of its fight for better wages and conditions and for recognition of trade unionism is ingrained in the people of Durham. They have great faith in their trade unions, and this spirit has passed from father to son and it has built up the great trade union movement in our county.
The right hon. Lady referred to the making of appointments. I was a member of an education committee for eight years and I remember that if ever there was a vacancy for a headship, Freemasonry was there on the job and Conservatives became Socialists over night. The background of Durham must be kept in mind if one is to understand why this dispute has arisen. Let me tell the Opposition

that a non-unionist is not looked upon with any favour in Durham County.

Mr. Jennings: That is not right. I have lived there all my life.

Mr. Blyton: I am not talking about Conservatives in Durham who support non-unionists. I am talking about working people in Durham who work in mines and factories and who love trade unionism as much as anything that one could think of. We think that a man who will take the benefits that a trade union has secured for its members, and who will take the benefits of all the activities of a trade union without contributing towards it, is not a desirable kind of person with whom to work.
In my 25 years in the mines I have often been concerned with the non-union question. I have known instances when we have refused to go down the pits with non-unionists, when we have made them travel by themselves and when we have exhibited every kind of awkwardness to force those men to recognise their obligations. We also regard a non-unionist as a person, who, when a dispute arises, is a menace to the union in its fight for better wages and conditions. He cannot be trusted by his workmates who are trade unionists, and that ofen causes trouble in industry when this issue rears its head.
Why does this attitude arise? It comes about because of Tory vindictiveness against us. In the days that have passed they have, in my experience, always supported the employers in any fight that has taken place. I have never once known the Opposition stand against the employers when trade unions were fighting for their existence. They never complained when active trade unionists in 1926 were refused employment because of the crime of being active trade unionists.
I could give many examples but I intend to give only two. One is as recent as 11th March. I have observed the courtesies of the House by writing to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), and I have read the letter to him. As he had a prior engagement he asked to be excused from being present. The right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side has talked about victimisation. This letter which is headed:
Hon. Member of Newcastle West.


bears the address "30, Woodhill Avenue, Morecambe," and is dated 11th March, 1951. It reads:

"DEAR ERNIE,

"I understand that a matter to be discussed this week in Parliament is the Durham C.C. closed shop.

"Morecambe is in the constituency of Sir Ian Fraser of Morecambe and Lonsdale and perhaps he may be speaking and either yourself or some other M.P. may be joining in. They might find this interesting.

"I have been an active N.U.R. member in various spheres of the working class movement. I was founder-secretary of the Morecambe and Heysham Trades Council between 1940–47. In December 1945 I became the first Labour member of the Morecambe and Heysham Borough Council and retained the seat until May 1949 when I was not in a position to contest the seat again.

"During the period when I was holding that public office a member of the Conservative Party warned me in something like the following words, 'You'll have to watch out. They're after your blood and if you come unemployed you wont get work again so easily if at all. The Harbour Ward committee of the Conservative Party discussed the matter last night when they were asked to pledge themselves to preventing you or any of your party obtaining employment in the town.'

"That is clear enough. I came out of work last September. I am still out of work and am likely to remain so unless I can find some authority outside Tory Party control who will find me employment.

Yours fraternally,

T. E. NIXON."

I have given the information to the House, with the man's name and address. It can be verified by the Tory Party in Morecambe. I hope we shall not hear any more about so-called intimidation.

Mr. McCorquodale: Did the hon. Member say that the gentleman belonged to the National Union of Railwaymen, and that it is the nationalised railways that have discharged him?

Mr. Blyton: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to check in HANSARD what I said. I do not want to read the letter again. This man was an active N.U.R. member of the various working-class movements, and that is what happened to him when he was out of a job.

Mr. McCorquodale: It is a nationalised industry that will not give him a job?

Mr. Blyton: I take another example which deals with the question of intimidation, and I think this ought to

be noted, as the name of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) appears among those who voted against this Motion. After the 1926 strike, our men who were active trade unionists were denied employment. They were unemployed for years and they travelled far and wide to get a job. In the House of Commons a Motion was moved by Mr. Sullivan on 2nd March, 1927. It read:
That, in view of the large number of men who have not yet been able to resume their customary employment in the mining industry, this House urges the Government to take energetic measures to augment the volume of available employment in the industry and to secure other employment for those miners who cannot be re-absorbed; further, this House deplores the action of those employers in the industry who, in the re-engagement of men, are discriminating against active trade unionists.
The right hon. Member for Woodford was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government of that time.
What was the evidence of Lord Lawson, who was M.P. for Chester-le-Street at that time. [Laughter.]That may be a laughing matter to the Conservatives but these are the tragedies we went through. In putting his case Lord Lawson said:
Although some of these officials"—
he was referring to trade union officials—
are very mild, moderate and decent men, they have not been employed. Up and down the County of Durham…owners have refused to meet the men, not Communists, but men of the best type of character in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1927; Vol. 203, c. 473–4 and 502.]
He went on to say—these were not his words but this is what he meant: If you want to see a conflict more prolonged and more ruinous in this industry than ever before you have only to carry on in this way to see the bitterness that will arise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford voted against that Motion, when we were asking that active trade unionists should not be victimised in the seeking of employment. There was no howl against the employers then. What was happening was that they intended to crush the mining community, and that was why they gave the support they did on that issue.
That background has resulted in the majority of the members of the Durham County Council being men who lived


through those years; and they have strong feelings on the trade union question. We also remember the chronic unemployment and distress when non-unionists were given preference for jobs in order to get wages down because trade unionists would not accept less than trade union rates. That is the background against which the House has to discuss the dispute with the Durham County Council.
In spite of this, I believe that the Government's attitude has been right. I have never had any use for the non-unionist, for I believe that the Government has more chance of success by negotiating with the Council than by trying to adopt the "big stick" method which the Tory Party used against the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians in 1927. They put commissioners in and abolished the elected representatives of the people. What was the crime of those elected representatives? They had refused to pay the meagre scales of relief to unemployed and poor people which the Tory Party demanded at that time. Regardless of democracy or the democratic vote, the Tories abolished the board of guardians and replaced it by commissioners. The right hon. Member for Woodford voted for this. No one was allowed in at their meetings when the commissioners made decisions. Is that the way the Tory Party now want to deal with the Durham County Council? Is that the method they would have adopted if they had had the power to force this issue in the County of Durham? It is a good job that the Tory Party are not in power.
I want to say something to the Durham County Council. Having said what I have done already, I add this quite sincerely. I believe that the job of the Durham County Council is that of administrators and not trade union organisers. I say that for the simple reason that I believe that trade union organisers are the people to organise the membership of the unions and the people who ought to take action to force these individuals into the unions—and that ought to come from the bottom and not from the top.

Mr. Leather: Force?

Mr. Blyton: Why not? Hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing it with some of their professional unions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): What about the lawyers?

Mr. Blyton: There is another point. We hear the charge that the central Government are always interfering with local autonomy and that they are taking a lot of powers away from local authorities. Yet today the Opposition are arguing that we should take County Durham by the scruff of the neck and teach it a serious lesson because of this issue.

Mr. Jennings: It is not the administration of the Durham County Council which is at fault; it is the methods it is employing in administering.

Mr. Blyton: I do not think I ought to take any notice of that intervention. I know the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) well, and I know that when he gets pent up he must vent his feelings. I believe that the Government's approach to the problem is correct. The Durham County Council have decided that they will not implement the resolution about which there has been so much talk. Is it a crime to ask a person if he is a member of a trade union? Speaking for myself, I see nothing wrong in it. If another union thinks that it is wrong, the Durham County Council is entitled to meet it and take into serious consideration the views expressed if they are the representative opinion of the members of that union. Likewise, I hope that the N.U.T. will go out on an organising campaign with some energy behind it and get all the teachers into the union.
We have talked about the closed shop. I consider that the lawyers' union is a closed shop.

Mr. Lindgren: Ask the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson).

Hon. Members: What about the doctors?

Mr. Blyton: I consider that the B.M.A. is a closed shop.

Dr. Hill: Is the hon. Member suggesting by that remark that there is any compulsion whatever to join the British Medical Association?

Mr. Blyton: What I can say, as one who has sat on a local authority for many


years, is that, when authorities have advertised for a doctor, the B.M.A. have prevented the doctors from applying.

Dr. Hill: Will the hon. Member agree that, whenever the advertisements of his authority have been rejected, it has been because his authority has not observed a national agreement on remuneration?

Mr. Blyton: Is not the Dental Board a closed shop? The Dental Board says that it will have no foreign dentists in this country, but the miners are forced to take in foreigners when it suits the Opposition.

Dr. Hill: We have had hundreds of foreign dentists.

Mr. Blyton: I have never heard the Opposition talk about the Dental Board's ban on foreigners entering the dental profession. Is not the General Nursing Council a closed shop? A fee is payable, and if the fee is not paid the individual's name can be erased. Without this, a person cannot term herself a "State registered nurse," and, therefore, it is a closed shop. I have never heard the Opposition talk about this. I hope the Opposition will be able to "take" all this. I can take all they have to say.
What is behind all this agitation? I will tell the House. The Tories have harnessed to this dispute their hopes of reviving Toryism in Durham. For a long time they have been a decaying force. There is not a single Tory representative in the House from Durham County. There are about 10 Conservatives on the Durham County Council of about 117 members. In recent weeks at Wickham in County Durham the Tory Party have been running a Tory school teacher candidate on the issue of the closed shop. It was a Tory seat, but Labour won it back with a majority of 600 on this issue. The Tories have been so long in the wilderness that they hope that this issue will bring them out of oblivion.
I ask the House to vote for the Amendment, which protects the autonomy of local government and agrees that the Government should seek a settlement between the unions and the County Council. Of that, the Teachers' Union journal this week said:
Meanwhile, it is vital that there should be no wild talk that would confuse and prejudice discussion at the forthcoming meeting.

But the Tory Party have brought forward this Motion. I urge my friends in Durham County to accept the Government's advice. I say to those in the employment of the Durham County Council who are not in the union: "Be men and get inside and not take advantage of something for which you have not paid." The Tories were never the friends of the trade unions and they are not their friends tonight; and it is in that spirit that I move the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I beg to second the Amendment.
It was quite evident during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) that this issue can be fraught with political feeling. My own view is that it would be very dangerous indeed for this issue to be so fraught. I am speaking tonight on behalf of the National Union of Teachers, who would deplore any political feeling being brought into this issue.
I believe that the Motion has not been put down by the Conservative Party in the interests either of the trade unions of Durham or of the Durham education service, but in the interests of their political persuasion and their political party. Therefore, I say definitely that in putting down this Motion the Tory Party is in danger of exacerbating feelings that already exist. It is quite clear from my hon. Friend that Durham, like South Wales, has had a tragic trade union history. I will not digress far from the issue before us, but I can remember in the Rhondda Valley the white shirt being put on the non-unionsist. I know. I worked in the pits and I can remember very well that miners who stood up for trade unionism in the pits were ostracised and denied work in South Wales. I presume that it must have been the same in Durham. We have to recognise the deep historic feeling that exists as a result of the tragic experience through which Durham has passed.
We are concerned tonight with the employment of teachers and others in the Durham County Council. I say without any equivocation that in my opinion the Government, in view of the feeling that has existed on both sides—on the one side that of the County Council and on


the other side that of the trade unions concerned—have pursued up to now the wisest, the best and the most helpful policy. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Lady carefully and I could not understand the basis of the attack——

Miss Horsbrugh: I did not attack. I was very careful. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be no heat in this matter. I only invited the Government, in the Motion I put to the House, to repeat what they had already said and what I thought we could all agree upon.

Mr. Manuel: But the right hon. Lady went further.

Miss Horsbrugh: Wait one minute please. The Motion says:
That this House regrets the decision of the Durham County Council.…
The Government have already said that. In a letter they said they regretted the coercion. I only wanted that to be said with the unanimous approval of the House of Commons. There need be no attack from one side or the other and no political heat.

Mr. Cove: I followed the right hon. Lady carefully and, apart from any histrionics, I could not understand the point of her attack upon the Government.

Miss Horsbrugh: It was not an attack.

Mr. Cove: Then what was it? Why put down a Motion?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman really wants a reply? It was not an attack. I thought that in all probability the Government would accept the Motion. I tried to make it clear that I thought, and I still think, that it would be good if the public were informed of the opinion W the Government before the conference takes place. Also, that the people who have refused, the National Union of Teachers, and the Durham County Council should know the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Would the right hon. Lady say why the Motion was put down?

Mr. Cove: I am sorry to use these words but, having regard to the reply of the right hon. Lady, I must say it seems

to me that this is political propaganda and political humbug.

Dr. Morgan: So naÏve.

Mr. Cove: Quite frankly, the National Union of Teachers do not want this issue thrown into the maelstrom of political antagonism and political propaganda.

Mr. Henry Strauss: May I put one question to the hon. Member because I wish to follow his argument? The Motion on the Order Paper, to which he is seconding an Amendment, expresses with complete accuracy, does it not, the view of the National Union of Teachers? The N.U.T. do regret this decision. Does the hon. Member ask the House to disagree with them?

Mr. Cove: I shall be specific, even if I offend my friends. The National Union of Teachers do not favour any compulsion upon teachers to join the N.U.T. They believe that the power of their union is based upon voluntary membership and that for that membership there should be moral suasion. That is the decision of the N.U.T. and it is quite clear and definite.
The real issue before us is: Is it, or is it not wiser, having regard to the present situation, that this House should not express an opinion? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education would confirm that? I understand that a meeting of the N.U.T. with representatives of the Durham County Council has been arranged for 30th March. If hon. Members opposite are not anxious for political propaganda, why not wait for that meeting to take place? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not be absolutely passive about this matter. I am quite certain that his opinion and his weight will be used to find an amicable solution.
My right hon. Friend cannot interfere at this moment. If he did, I am quite sure that I and others would resist such interference. He has to wait and see what the result of that might be. He must not dare to interfere and to say that teachers in Durham must not belong or must belong to an organisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not the point."] My point is all right. The only point of interference that my right hon. Friend can make is when there is a disservice to the cause of education in Durham. If


the service is endangered, he has a right to interfere; then, he has the right and the obligation put upon him by Parliament to say that the education service in Durham must not be damaged, and therefore he interferes; but he cannot interfere in a direct manner, as far as membership of the union is concerned, until that occurs.
I make this my final plea tonight to my hon. Friends opposite. Do not let us have a Division tonight.

Mr. Strauss: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cove: Let it go—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw the Amendment."] No, hon. Members opposite should withdraw their Motion. I have been here too long to be side-tracked by them. Let us have a free field for negotiation between the representatives of the Durham County Council and the unions who are concerned in this issue. I believe that given that free field, without any political pressure, without any sort of suggestion of political propaganda and party advantage, a solution will be found if the House is wise enough to allow the matter to go to that conference on 30th March.

8.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hough-ton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) for the kind words he said about Colonel Vickery, the Chairman of the Moderate Party in the Durham County Council. He was a personal friend of mine whose great services in the cause of local government in Durham, though they may not always have met with the approval of the majority of the Durham County Council, were greatly appreciated in the county as a whole. Colonel Vickery had strong views on the matter we are discussing here tonight, and I know how much energy and hard work he gave to trying to bring about a different attitude in the Council. I, also, like the last speaker, do not intend to detain the House for very long, because I know how many Members wish to take part in the debate, but as I am probably the only Member on this side of the House who has served on the Durham County Council and who knows their ways, it would be a little strange if I did not say a few words about their present policy.
I should think that the Durham County Council are the most politically-minded

body that ever existed, and it is a most interesting body upon which to serve for one who is not of the dominant party. In the County Council there is really only a single party, which decides what the policy of the party is to be in the county, not so much in the Chamber of the Council but in the miners' hall. I was always amused by the way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not saying why not. I am only saying what actually happens, because it does not seem to be known so much outside the county as inside it. The dominant party in Durham are Socialist in their views, which date back to long-ago grievances that have been done away with for many years past.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring was entirely off the subject of today's debate when he dilated upon the grievances of that dim and distant past, when, I quite agree, the miners of the county had a very poor time. I also agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that the matter upon which we are engaged today is not one for party politics. That is why, I suppose, the Motion was framed in this way, because it would enormously strengthen the position of the Government, if the policy which they said they were going to emphasise is to be carried out, should they have a united House of Commons behind them rather than one side of the House.
Therefore, I hope very much that the Government will accept the Motion which, honestly, I do not believe is put up for party purposes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—because what good it will do to the Conservative Party in the county of Durham, I really do not know. It certainly will not have very much effect on opinion outside the county. I hope that the Government will accept the Motion, and I believe that it will be of considerable assistance to them in bringing to a satisfactory conclusion this very unsatisfactory state of things which exists in the county.
I agree also that nothing can be done in the matter, not even by the Government, until the meeting has taken place between the National Union of Teachers and the County Council; but until the resolution in the Council has been rescinded I cannot conceive of how genuine trade unionists can be satisfied. Perhaps I should explain my meaning. As I understand it the dispute is really


not so much about the merits or demerits of the closed shop, but about an attempted enforcement of such a policy by employers over employees. That is the point at issue as I see it, between the teachers and the County Council—a point which, I think, was taken at a recent meeting of the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters.
The supporters of trade unions in the county of Durham do not seem to appreciate how strange is the position today. The County Council are employers. They are in the position of employers, and they are trying to compel their employees to do something of which their particular unions do not approve. Therefore, the trade unionists on the other side of the House are defeating the objects which, they say, are the objects of trade unionism. I hope that that point will be emphasised strongly in the course of the debate.
The situation which existed hitherto has entirely changed. Now that local government is so large an employer of labour, councils are employers and should no longer be politicians. I hope, therefore, that an arrangement will be brought about which will enable the National Union of Teachers, the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters and other trade unions whose members work for the Durham County Council to preserve the rights and liberties and to count upon the loyalty of their members which is essential for sane and useful trade unionism.
I do not intend to detain the House any longer, but I wanted to bring forward that important point. Speaking as an old member of the county council who has watched its work for many years and realised that there is plenty of good intention among its members, I say that although I do not agree with much of what they do, I always console myself when I remember that sometimes, when I was on the county council and made a vigorous attack on the other side, some members of the other side would come to me afterwards and say, "Colonel you were perfectly right in what you said, but you must remember it is a matter of politics."

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Batter: It is not very often I inflict myself on the House and it is with considerable

trepidation that I intervene in a matter which vitally concerns Durham County Council. But even a political innocent like myself would never have believed for a moment that the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh), who moved the Motion, was not following the procedure which has been adopted for a considerable number of months by right hon. and hon. Members opposite—sniping at the Government, and particularly the Postmaster-General, upon all matters connected with trade union activities. We are not so credulous as to be likely to believe that the sole idea behind this Motion is that we should get assistance from hon. Members opposite to settle some difficulties which have arisen in the Durham County Council's area.
The Opposition are doing their job of opposing, as far as they can, and making the situation as difficult for the Government as they can. I should have imagined that anyone interested in getting a settlement of this difficulty would have agreed with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). I took down some of the right hon. Lady's words and thought her objection was that certain questions were put to the candidate. Although she said that she was not making an attack on the Government, nevertheless she said it was a curious coincidence that the person who answered the questions actually received the job. I do not know whether that can be considered as a compliment either to the county councillors who were elected, whether it can be considered a compliment to the Government, or how it can be considered, except from the point of view that something had been done which ought not to have been done and, therefore, the Motion appeared on the Order Paper.
I have been a trade union member for nearly 40 years, I have not aspired to or achieved the high office in trade union affairs of many of my hon. Friends, but I certainly had some considerable experience of the activities of the trade union movement. It has always been a source of pride to those of us who have worked in the movement that our activities have been concentrated on raising the standard of life of our people and, incidentally, by raising their standard, raising the


standard of the majority of people in the community. It has to be remembered that the trade union movement of this country comprises the bulk of the population. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] In spite of that interjection it has to be accepted that trade union members, with their dependents, constitute the bulk of the population, but even if I go no further I would say that at least they constitute the bulk of the people who contribute to the well-being of society——

Mr. Leather: Would the hon. Member give us the authority for that statement?

Mr. Butler: It is on record in HANSARD, in an interjection.
In the course of our trade union activity we have had to face many attempts on the part of bad employers to circumvent the legitimate aspirations of our people. All sorts of schemes have been devised and I suggest that the Conservative Party have been very active recently in an attempt to gather together some of those freaks of nature called Conservative trade unionists. They have at least one on the opposite benches but how far his adherence will continue, and for how long, it is difficult to say. Employers have formed all sorts of organisations for the purpose of weaning our people away from their legitimate paths. They have devised "goose clubs" as we call them and "company unions" and all sorts of sidelines in an attempt to take our people away from the job they ought to be doing.
When I listen to the argument about taking away the liberty of the citizen and to arguments against the closed shop I recall that when I came back from the Navy, in the slump of 1921, I was an active shop steward. I remember an employer telling me, one Friday night, that there was no work for me and when I went to the various factories I found that my name had gone round as a member of my trade union. I was debarred from exercising what is described and lauded on many Tory platforms as the "God-given right to work." I was debarred from working. For the protection of its members the trade union movement has had to devise certain organisations and retain for itself certain powers.
When considering restrictive practices or restrictions on the liberty of the sub-

ject, I recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), some time ago, was in disfavour with the Chair in connection with a matter which he called "the closed shop in reverse." While we are discussing what is suggested as a closed shop I want to refer to what I think is "the closed shop in reverse" and to refer to a system operating throughout the country in connection with an organisation called "Foremen's and Staffs' Mutual Benefit Society," which, I understand, has an exceedingly small membership. The reason why I refer to this——

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order to discuss the affairs of this union in a debate on the Durham County Council?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I assume that the hon. Member is going to relate his remarks to the debate in some way.

Mr. Butler: I will try. I am inexperienced compared with some of my hon. Friends and some right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I will endeavour to relate my remarks to the question of the closed shop.
I would say that, while we have criticism of the closed shop, there are certain things going on which are making it difficult for the trade unions to do their legitimate job, and I hope that the moneys which are being paid from certain corporations and commissions set up by the Labour Government will no longer go to this organisation—the Foremen's and Staffs' Mutual Benefit Society—which debars trade unionists from enjoying the benefits which have accrued to them from these commissions and these boards.
I hope that the whole of this discussion will proceed in the light of the fact that the Tory Party are, in this Motion, opposing trade unionism in this country, and that, while they talk of the theoretical liberties which the citizens ought to enjoy, those of us who have had to suffer at the hands of employers remember that the liberty we got was the liberty of the unemployment exchange and the cold hearth at home.

8.30 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: So far as I am concerned, the issue before the


House is bound up with the anxiety which has been expressed by the National Union of Teachers about the length of time it has taken to put the expressed policy of the Minister of Education into effective operation by the Durham County Council.
That is my approach to the matter, and I hope the House will realise the implications of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) when she referred to the fact that the organ representing the National Union of Teachers had stated that further action was required at the very highest level, the operative words, if I may say so, being "further action." As far as I am concerned, and I agree in this with some hon. Gentlemen opposite, I would have preferred that this debate should have taken place after the conference had been held between the local branch of the National Union of Teachers and the Durham County Council. I think that, tonight, we are all trying to approach this matter from a non-political point of view, because we are all genuinely anxious that it should be settled, primarily, from the point of view of the benefit of the educational services under the Durham County Council.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Miss Ward: I am not going to be quite as brief as some hon. Members think. I wish to continue my remarks.
I want to call the attention of the House to a Question which was asked and the answer given by the Minister of Education as long ago as November last. The right hon. Gentleman was asked:
Whether school teachers employed in schools coming within the jurisdiction of his Department must, as a condition of their employment, be members of the National Union of Teachers.
His reply was:
I impose no such requirement. I have, moreover, informed the Durham local education authority, who are contemplating such a requirement, that, while I favour teachers joining a union or professional organisation, I do not consider that they should be coerced into doing so by the action of their employing authority.
If I may say so, with very great respect, to the right hon. Gentleman, that was a very conservative statement of fact. Then, he went on to say:
If the authority were to persist in the line of action proposed, they might find themselves as a result, unable to discharge their statutory obligations. I could not remain indifferent

to this threat to the educational service, and, if need be, I should use the powers which the Act gives me to prevent it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 69.]
Again, the operative phrase in that statement is "were to persist in." The real objective of my hon. and right hon. Friends in putting down this Motion tonight is to find out what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and to discover how long he thinks it is wise for this situation to remain as it is at present. I am quite certain that all Members of the House realise that there is very considerable anxiety, not only among the teachers, but among all sections of the community in Durham County and in the North of England at the continued persistence of this state of uncertainty in Durham County, and that we are all extremely anxious that the matter should be put right at the earliest possible moment.
The right hon. Gentleman having made that statement in the House, went, if I remember rightly, to County Durham, to Sunderland, to open a new school. Again, if I remember rightly, the right hon. Gentleman there met the local branch of the National Union of Teachers, who expressed to him their deep anxiety at the position in County Durham. The right hon. Gentleman, very properly and following the line which the Government have taken in this matter, and supported by a considerable number of hon. Members opposite, expressed his view in the following terms:
It is no part of the bosses' job to do the trade unions' work. I have made my position quite clear.
That, again, indicates the view, I am quite certain, of the Government and of hon. Members opposite. But still we have that most uncertain position continuing in County Durham, and we have had, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend this most unfortunate incident of the appointment of a headmaster out of a selected number of candidates, who if I may say so without offence, "ratted" on his own professional union. If I am right in my assessment of the speeches that have been made by hon. Members opposite, they believe in loyalty to their unions. Therefore, I do not think that any of us would be particularly happy that the appointment of a headmaster for a very important school in County Durham should have been made on the basis of his really being disloyal to his own professional association.

Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Lady not aware that, in the case of another appointment, when six applicants were interviewed five answered the question?

Miss Ward: I do not want to be taken off my line of argument, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman will consult the Press reports he will see that the five losing applicants in this matter also answered that they were not prepared to answer the question, but that one of the applicants did, in fact, say that she was a member of her trade union. If I may say so, with great respect, the hon. Gentleman has got the thing the wrong way round. I do not propose to go into that matter because there is no need to do so. The fact is really quite clear.
My opinion is—and it is contained, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, in the Press reports of the various meetings that have taken place in the eastern section of the Durham County Council Educational Association—that when this whole question of the appointment of the headmaster came up for consideration, not only was deep concern and anxiety expressed by people who held different political views from those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that senior members of the Socialist Party themselves expressed very grave doubts as to the wisdom of the chairman of the selection committee in putting that' question to the applicants.
It will be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite that a very important member of the Socialist Party—I am not quite certain whether he has resigned or whether he has been expelled, but whatever has happened he is out of the Socialist Party on this issue—and another very important Socialist supporter on Durham County Council, a certain Councillor Sullivan, expressed their gravest doubts about the action of the chairman of the Selection Committee.
Therefore, I do not think I am being unfair in saying that on this persistence on the part of Durham County Council in questioning candidates for appointments in schools, doubts have been expressed not only by political opponents but also by members of the Socialist Party. They are loyal members of the trade unions, who take exactly the same point of view as that expressed by the Minister of Education in Sunderland when

he said it was no part of the bosses' job to do the work of the trade unions.
No doubt anyone reading the full report of this Education Committee would realise the very deep cleavage that exists amongst members of Durham County Council. But what rather alarmed me, and I think the Minister of Education will be equally alarmed to hear this, is that the chairman of the Committee on that occasion, County Councillor Peart, in answering criticism, made this observation, which I think was extremely unfair on the right hon. Gentleman:
But get away from the idea that Mr. Tomlinson is not in favour of the closed shop.
We have a very deep affection for the right hon. Gentleman's personality, though not for his politics, and we know that when County Councillor Peart made that observation he was not putting forward the view of the right hon. Gentleman. But one can very well see that among supporters of the Durham County Council a statement of that kind does arouse certain suspicions. Whatever our politics, I am sure all of us very much regret that what is tantamount to an attack on the faith of the right hon. Gentleman has been made.
Councillor Sullivan said:
I am an ardent trade unionist, but my point is that the initiative for a closed shop policy should be taken by the trade unions and not the employer.
What I am asking for today, and what I think will be in accord with all moderate opinion right through our Northern counties is for leadership from the right hon. Gentleman in this very difficult situation.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member has had it.

Miss Ward: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) quoted the other day the answer that has been sent by the Clerk to Durham County Council to the right hon. Gentleman through the instrument of the Ministry of Health. Quite apart from any party view, all of us who have very great respect for Ministers of the Crown feel that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken exception to the tone of that letter. The difficulty that has occurred in this matter, of course, was that the letter from the Clerk to Durham County Council was only placed in the


Library of the House of Commons. It was not made public and, therefore, the general community in the North of England were unaware of the very extraordinary tones of that letter from the Clerk to the Durham County Council to Ministers of the Crown.
I noticed that in his original comment on this issue the right hon. Gentleman said he would have to take note of any persistence by the Durham County Council in the policy they have pursued. I presume that he would take action under Section 66 of the Education Act, 1944, and, for the purposes of the record, I want to read out what power the right hon. Gentleman possess under that Act. This is the relevant section—Section 68:
If the Minister is satisfied, either on complaint by any person or otherwise, that any local education authority or the managers or governors of any county or voluntary school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may…contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient.
The Minister has power under Section 68 of that Act to issue directions. Nobody wants those directions to be issued. Even in my part of the world we believe in local authorities working without interference from the central authority.
In conclusion, I would emphasise that it is apparent that a wide section of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters in the Durham County Council, the National Union of Teachers and a very wide variety of people who have faith in local government administration ask the right hon. Gentleman to give leadership here. We hope that by accepting our Motion tonight he will give such leadership in the direction of carrying out the principles in which he and so many of his supporters profoundly believe.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. John Cooper: I do not propose to follow the arguments of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) for I wish to draw attention to matters arising from this problem which so far have not been discussed in the debate. I should like to say at the outset that I read carefully the speeches of the Adjournment debate of 15th November.
It seems to me that if the Motion were carried it would be understood in the country that the Government were opposed to any local authority using compulsion to create trade union membership. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear those notes of approval from the other side of the House of what I have just said.

Mr. Leather: The Government have said that.

Mr. Cooper: That enables me to draw a conclusion which is of vital importance. May I remind the House that it was not until the punitive Trades Disputes Act of 1927 that it was made impossible for a local authority to compel its employees to join a trade union. That was done by Section 6 of the 1927 Act—incidentally it had nothing to do with the General Strike. It was introduced by the Conservative Party and was in the form of an Amendment by the Attorney-General. That was the first time this restriction was placed upon local authorities. In 1946 the Labour Government repealed that Act, including Section 6. What I am suggesting to the House is that an attempt is now being made, through the incident of the Durham County Council case, to get over repeal of the 1927 Act as far as Section 6 is concerned.
I do question without any hesitation the genuineness of the Conservative Party in this matter. In the debate on 15th November it was said that it was a reasonable thing that local authorities should encourage their workpeople to be members of trade unions. On the other side of the House it was said that no exception could be taken to that. After the repeal of the 1927 Act in 1946, the largest local authority in Great Britain, the London County Council, amended their standing orders, to encourage—"encourage" was the word used—their employees to join their appropriate trade unions.
What did the Conservative Party Leader of the Conservative Opposition on the London County Council say about that? He said that the word "encouragement" was a threat. The hon. Member for Tynemouth used the same word tonight. She said that the attitude of the Durham County Council was a threat. The hon. Member opposite—the Liberal Party Member—ought not to shake his head. I heard her say it. The hon.


Lady said that the Durham County Council's attitude was a threat. I am now pointing out that the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), who was Leader of the Conservative Opposition on the London County Council in 1946 said, when we were using the word "encouragement" in that respect, that it was a threat.
I am not attacking the Liberal Party for the moment. The hon. Gentleman said it was a threat. The point I am making is that I question the sincerity of the Tories, because although on 15th November, in the Adjournment debate, they said it was a reasonable thing for local authorities to encourage their employees to join their appropriate trade unions, when the London County Council did that very thing we were accused by the Tories of threatening.
What is the trade union attitude? I can speak with a degree of assurance and confidence on this matter because I had years of trying to carry out a liberal policy of individual freedom amid these traditional difficulties of trade unionists; and they are very real difficulties, and I want to tell the House about them. The aim of all trade unions is to get 100 per cent. trade union membership. No one objects to that. I say—and I am quite sure that no sensible person would disagree with it—that the type of membership a trade union wants is an enlightened, convinced membership of people who know why they are in membership, and on a voluntary basis if possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I want to come to some of the practical difficulties.
A lot of humbug is talked from time time to time in this House about freedom. Freedom is not an absolute thing. It is a conditioned thing. Let me refer to what the local authorities did in 1939—many Conservative local authorities. Objection has been taken to Durham County Council's serving notice on employees and then offering to re-employ them. Hon. Members, particularly those in the legal profession, will remember a very important legal case affecting local authorities those arose in 1939, the case of Marrison v. Bell. That case laid down that until an employee was sacked by notice whilst he was off sick he should continue to draw full wages. Not one, but

hundreds, of local authorities in 1939 served upon their employees notices terminating their services, and then they offered to re-employ them on the understanding that they would contract out of their legal rights so far as sickness was concerned.
I took the trouble to go to the Library and read the Index for HANSARD for 1939, and the case of Marrison v. Bell was not raised in the House; the Conservatives were not worried about that restriction on the liberty of the individual; they were not worried that, by the method of notice, that individual was being compelled to forego his legal rights created by that test case in the appeal court. Freedom is conditional. A childless couple must pay the local education rate although they get no benefit out of it. Is that an abuse of individual freedom? It is certainly a restriction on it. Many other similar examples could be quoted.
Let me now put a practical issue, and I challenge any hon. Member to give the answer to this question. I as a trade union official have been trying to find the answer for over 20 years. If there are 200 men working in a firm, and 199 of them are in a trade union and say to me as a trade union officer—never mind about the employer—that they will not work with the one and only man who will not take up his trade union card——

Mr. Hollis: Is the situation not rather this? Supposing 199 union workmen say that they will not allow the 200th workman to be coerced, what will the hon. Member do?

Mr. Cooper: I am putting this problem to the House——

Major Hicks-Beach: Answer the question.

Mr. Cooper: I should be very grateful if hon. Members would allow me to make my speech in my own way.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Gentleman invited the challenge.

Mr. Cooper: When this matter was last debated on 15th November, the question of individual freedom was raised, and the point I am trying to put is that when 199 men say they will not work with the 200th man because he does not hold a trade union card, the problem is balanc-


ing the liberty of the 199 men refusing to work with the non-union man against the liberty of the one man to choose whether or not he will hold a trade union card.

Mr. Hollis: But the 199 are not saying that in this case.

Mr. Cooper: That is a practical difficulty which a trade union official has had to face, and if the House can give the answer to that question I should be very pleased indeed.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me saying so, he is asking the question the wrong way round. Is it not the case here that the National Union of Teachers are saying that it is their freedom to be in a relationship with the employer in which the employer cannot force them to join the union? It is the exact opposite of the condition the hon. Gentleman is now putting before the House.

Mr. Cooper: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to follow the argument through. I have given the practical difficulty involved, and other cases could be cited. At the Brighton Power Station, of 900 men there was one outside the union.

Mr. Vane: But this is Durham.

Mr. Cooper: I know this is Durham, and I am now coming to the point. There was one man outside the union and the rest of the men said they would not work with him. My point is that—and this is why I support the Amendment—if local authorities have not got the same power as private employers to impose whatever conditions of service they wish, obvious difficulties follow. When 199 men refuse to work with one other man a problem is created, not only for the trade union but for the employer, because the employer is forced to decide whether he will have the 199 men or whether he will respect the conscience of the one individual and lose the other 199.
I will relate this to Durham. No one, I am happy to say, has so far been sacked. The right hon. Lady indicated that negotiations are going on. My colleague the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) gave the story in the main of the great trade union tradition in Durham, mainly based upon the mining industry, which, it is interesting

to know, is the one industry which has been so persecuted by employers and by Governments. Their tradition of trade unionism is the strongest that one can find in this country. I have no doubt that a great many miners carry that tradition with them when they go into the County Hall in Durham.
I am also aware that in the past because of these 150 men out of 200, the Durham County Council have been asked by the trade unions to bring in compulsory trade union membership in certain sections. It is, however, a rather ironical position with which we are faced. I can imagine Durham miners observing any organisation of any trade union and welcoming, if there are only a few non-unionists, the obligation on every man to be in his union. It is a novel thing to find a trade union that objects. The union that has a closed shop so far as negotiating machinery is concerned is that of the teaching profession.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The union has not a closed shop so far as negotiating machinery is concerned. On the Teachers Panel of the Burnham Committee there is not only the National Union of Teachers but the Association of Teachers of Technical Institutes, the Association of Assistant Masters, the Association of Assistant Mistresses, the Headmasters' Association and the Headmistresses' Association.

Mr. Cooper: I have no doubt that there are many organisations representing many teachers and that restrictive practices apply there.
The Amendment supports what is actually taking place. It would be a very bad thing whilst negotiations are going on for this House to express regret. The right hon. Lady made a strong point on the Adjournment debate about the word "regret" being used. I entirely agree with her. That was the first statement of fact, but it did not go far enough, because the Minister not only made a point of the word "regret" but made the legal point also that we can only advise. Let us be quite clear about this. If we are going to regret every case of local authorities imposing compulsory trade unionism, that is very strong compulsion indeed. I hope the House will support the Amendment and that we shall finally have


an amicable settlement, as, I believe, will be the outcome in Durham.

9.4 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlin-son): This debate has been initiated on the question of Durham County Council, and we have been asked by the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsburgh) to accept the suggestion that the Motion was put down purely for the purpose of assisting the Government. I do not think that we should either "kid" one another or "kid" ourselves. Had the Motion been put down in the right hon. Lady's name, supported by the eminent hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), who is to reply, maybe I would have accepted that view.
When we notice the names of Mr. Churchill, Mr. Eden, Mr. Butler, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am reading from the Order Paper, which I understand is quite in order—including also the Members to whom I have referred, I think it will be realised that it has been put down by the Conservative Party. If the suggestion is being made that all that is wanted is to reiterate what has been said before, then it seems to me that the old idea of getting an elephant to crack a nut is well out of date. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"] I have always refused to interpret a joke, and I am not prepared to do it even to meet the requirements of the House.
In the course of the right hon. Lady's remarks, she suggested that we had expressed regret and that it was necessary to express it again. She did not point out to the House that the expression of regret that was made by the two Ministers concerned had achieved the object for which it was made. I will come to the whole case, because I want to go through it step by step to show that neither I nor the Government have moved one step in this direction except with the view of assisting not only in a solution of this problem, but in a solution that will be in the interests of the children who, in this business, have been left outside and are far more important, in my judgment, than either of the contestants.
The right hon. Lady made the best case that it is possible to make for the Amendment. Every argument she used in seek-

ing to ask the House to express regret was an argument in favour of the Amendment—the inadvisability of interfering with local autonomy, and expressing the hope that the negotiations which are now in progress will lead to a satisfactory conclusion. Is anyone in the House prepared to suggest that this line is not the best possible for all concerned? Is anyone prepared to suggest that this line is not in the best interests of the children? When it is suggested that there is no politics in this, and that no one is seeking to make political capital out of it, I wonder who was responsible for the leading article in the "Evening Standard." I do not suppose it is suggested that anyone on this side was responsible for it. I am bringing it up at the first opportunity. Certain questions are postulated in this article, such as:
Who of the great teachers would have joined a union? Would Arnold of Rugby or Sanderson of Oundle or Jowett of Balliol have joined a union?
If I remember correctly Arnold was appointed in 1826, so if he had thought about joining a union he would have been in gaol. I do not need to mention the other two, but if these two men were half as great as I believe they are, both of them would have joined a trade union.
Among other things I happened to be a trade union secretary. The job I am doing now is a passing phase, and some are hoping that it will quickly pass. In my trade union life I have nothing for which to apologise, and when, as a trade unionist, I was working in the trade union movement I found that any man worth his salt would have been glad to join that which was started in the interests of his fellow men. I do not believe that anybody would object to that.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) quoted my letter, and I am going to quote it, too, because I want to go through the history of this business and the attitude taken up by the Government. It was on 18th November, 1950, that the County Council sent out the notice, to which reference has been made, calling upon the people in their employment to become members of an appropriate trade union. It read:
Appropriate notices will accordingly be given to all those persons in the employment of the County Council who are not members of a trade union to terminate their employment and, at the same time, the persons con-


cerned will be offered re-employment on their existing terms with an over-riding condition that they become members of an appropriate trade union before being re-engaged.
This letter was sent out by the director of education on the instructions of the County Council.
In view of these decisions I shall be obliged if you will request all members of the staff (both teaching and non-teaching) of your Department to produce to you evidence that they are members of an appropriate trade union by submitting for inspection their current membership cards. The attention of any employees unable to comply with this request should be drawn to the decision of the County Council and these employees should be informed that unless they produce evidence of membership by the 25th November, 1950, notice of termination of engagement will be issued in accordance with the terms of paragraph 2 above.
On the 27th November, 1950, the attached schedule should be completed by you and despatched to the County Office without delay.
That was brought to my notice, and on 22nd November I ordered this letter to be sent, it being signed by one of my officials:
I am directed by the Minister of Education to refer to the decision which, he understands, has recently been taken by the Durham County Council, that it shall be a condition of employment of all their employees that they shall be members of an appropriate trade union.
The Minister understands that this decision applies to teachers employed by the County Council as local education authority, and that it is the Council's intention to terminate the employment of any teacher who fails to produce evidence by 25th November, 1950, that he is a member of an appropriate trade union.
The Minister is in favour of teachers joining a union or professional association, but he considers that they should not be coerced into membership by the action of their employing authority. If the Council were to persist in the line of action proposed, they might find themselves, as a result, unable to discharge their statutory obligations under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1944. The Minister wishes the Council to know that he could not remain indifferent to this threat to the educational service, and that, if it materialised, or seemed likely to do so, he would be compelled to take action, if need be, by the issue of directions under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1944.
A similar letter was sent covering the health services. I think the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Luton on the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend who was Minister of Health at that time called the attention of the County Council to circular 227/46 in a communication to the Clerk of the County Council, which said:

I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to his statement in the House of Commons on 5th December"—
That was on a previous occasion—
regarding the action of certain local authorities who have required their nursing staff to join trade union or other recognised organisations and have indicated that their employment will be terminated if they fail to do so.
The Minister made it clear to all local authorities that he considered that their primary duty as health authorities was
to maintain the efficiency and smooth running of their health service and to ensure the welfare of the patients for whom they are responsible. All other considerations must in his view, be regarded as secondary. He trusts that the local authorities will follow this principle in their administration.
Both from myself as Minister of Education and from the Minister of Health there had been a clear statement of the attitude of the Government on this question.
There has been no change. Questions have been asked in the House on several occasions. Again, I am reading:
MR. BAKER WHITE asked the Minister of Education whether school teachers employed in schools coming within the jurisdiction of his Department must, as a condition of their employment, be members of the National Union of Teachers.
My answer on that occasion was the answer I give again tonight:
I impose no such requirement. I have, moreover, informed the Durham local education authority, who are contemplating such a requirement, that, while I favour teachers joining a union or professional organisation, I do not consider that they should be coerced into doing so by the action of their employing authority. If the authority were to persist in the line of action proposed they might find themselves, as a result, unable to discharge their statutory obligations.
Then I repeat:
I could not remain indifferent to this threat to the educational service and, if need be, I should use the powers which the Act gives me to prevent it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 69.]

An Hon. Member: What is it all about?

Mr. Tomlinson: This is what it is all about. I am charged with the duty of seeing that educational administration under an Act of Parliament is maintained. If any action of an authority, whether approved by this House or otherwise, interferes with or prevents the administration of the Act with which I am charged, it is my duty to see that the Act is carried out.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has sufficient power to insist upon the liberty of the employee?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have all the power that is necessary to indicate to the peole concerned the line of action which would be taken in the event of the circumstances arising which I think it is everybody's duty to prevent.
As a result of the action which I and my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Health took, the resolution of the Durham County Council was not implemented. The fact remains that they had given indication that on a certain date certain action would be taken unless certain things were done, but the resolution was not implemented. Now we are told tonight that it does not matter because it is still on the books. There are thousands of resolutions still on the books of local authorities which have not been implemented, and nobody ever bothers about them. It is action which is taken of which we must take cognisance. The Opposition are asking us to regret the decision of the Durham County Council to do something. But as a result of some action which we have taken they have not done that which they said they would do.
The fact is that the Opposition have put down the wrong Motion. It is not for me to tell those who put their names to the Motion what sort of Motion they should have put down, but if they wanted to raise the question of the further action which has taken place since—with which I will deal in a moment—another Motion should have been put down. The Motion before the House refers only to the decision of the Durham County Council to sack all their employees on a given date and to re-engage them when they brought forward some notice to show that they were members of a trade union or some professional organisation.
What has taken place since? I am aware that in two or three instances recently candidates for posts under the educational authority have been asked whether they were members of a union, and that in one instance the authority appointed a candidate who answered the question in the affirmative, contrary to the advice of the union. I suggest that it does not follow that his answer was the determining factor in his appointment. It

may have been a coincidence, or he may have had other qualifications in addition to being a member of a trade union. As a matter of fact, he would not have been in a position to apply for the post at all had he not been a qualified teacher. So were the other five candidates. The right hon. Lady may be surprised when I tell her that the answer of the other five—it seems to me to be peculiar in some respects—was "The union has told me that I have not to answer."

Miss Horsbrugh: If the right hon. Gentleman will look in HANSARD tomorrow he will see that that is what I said; that some of the five had said that their union had advised them not to answer.

Mr. Tomlinson: If there is any clearer way of indicating to a committee that one is a member of a union than saying that one's union has told one not to answer——

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the right hon. Gentleman would agtee with me that that answer was not made by all five applicants. That is the point.

Mr. Manuel: How does the right hon. Lady know?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the facts I think he will agree with me.

Mr. Tomlinson: All I know is that there are one or two cases about which the Opposition have not spoken. As a matter of fact, more than five people have answered in that way. But this is far too important a matter upon which to be scoring debating points——

Earl Winterton: Tammany Hall, that is what it is.

Mr. Manuel: The noble Lord has not been here all day.

Mr. Tomlinson: All I can suggest to the noble Lord is that up to now, although this debate has been a little heated sometimes, it has been reasonably pleasant, and he might allow it so to continue. I repeat that this question is far too important for the scoring of debating points. I know the attitude that has been taken up by the trade unions, I realise the difficulties of the situation, and I am anxious to get an amicable settlement. I have


been responsible for calling together the bodies who can settle this. I do not want at this stage any suggestion, either on the part of the House of Commons or anybody else, which will make it more difficult for that settlement to be reached.
What are the alternatives? Unless we can get the National Union of Teachers and the Durham County Council, who are the education authority concerned, to come together on this matter, circumstances might arise in which I should be compelled to issue a direction. I do not know whether that would be in the interests of the children or whether it would be just a victory for what I call pigheadedness on both sides at the expense of the children. I therefore appeal to the House to support this Amendment or to drop the Motion. I would do it for the sake of, and in the interests of, the children.
I know there is ill-feeling and that I am called upon to do certain things as a consequence of actions that are taken. I would point out to the House that this is not the only authority who ask questions which, in my judgment, ought not to be asked when appointments are being made. I do not want to interfere with every local authority as to the way in which they should carry out their duties. After all, there is something to be said for the autonomy of local authority, and there is something particularly to be said for seeing that the local authorities observe a code which is generally acceptable. It is because I want that code to be applied, and because I want the N.U.T., from their headquarters to have the opportunity of attempting to work out that code with the Durham authority, that I am particularly anxious to solve this problem in the right way. I believe there is a right and wrong way of solving it.
May be I have the power to enforce all that I want to enforce, but I know that a person who is made to do things against his will does not do them in the interests of those who we ought to have most at heart in this business. I have had before me on more than one occasion representatives of education authorities. I have asked them not to do things they were determined to do for the simple reason that I believed that if somebody else took exception on a different line from that which is being taken by the National Union of Teachers at this time, I should have to interfere. Whether that would

lead to the amicable arrangement we have always had in this country, I do not know. I say that the attitude we have taken up is a right one, and I ask the House for the confidence expressed in the Amendment rather than in the Motion.

9.30 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I am sure I speak for many in the House when I say that the right hon. Gentleman, by the persuasive and genial way in which he has addressed the House, has convinced us that within the limits imposed upon him by the situation and within the limits of local autonomy in this matter, he has made every effort to secure a peaceful and satisfactory solution of the Durham difficulty. At the same time, the House cannot ignore those limits, for those limits seem to me to be a determining factor in the situation.
I think the House will agree that when my right hon. Friend moved the Motion, no one could have spoken in a less aggressive manner than she did. But when the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) put his Amendment to the House—and I am grateful to him for the frank and forthright way in which he did it—it became perfectly clear that there are deeper issues here involved, that there are principles here involved; and I suggest that it is the duty of the House, whatever the conclusion may be, to examine the issue of principle.
If one examines the statements of Councillor Peart, who has spoken in an equally frank and forthright way in the Durham County Council, it is perfectly clear that one of the factors which has led this Council to act in the way they have acted was the existence of this 100 per cent, or closed shop attitude of mind in the trade unions to which the majority of the members of the Durham County Council belong, I state that as a fact. It is what I may call the closed shop attitude which they have seen from the angle of employees which they are now translating into action as employers. Therefore we must, I suggest, look at this principle.
The pity is that too little has been said during this short debate tonight about the principle of individual liberty. Perhaps I may state objectively what I understand the argument to be: That where there


is a majority holding a certain view, believing in a certain organisation and belonging to it, then that majority has the right, by action of one kind or another, to compel the minority to join.

Mr. J. Cooper: Mr. J. Cooper rose——

Dr. Hill: As I understand it, it is that the majority takes action, believing that the minority should join, to secure that the minority does join.

Mr. Cooper: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the point which I made. The party opposite believe in the right to strike, and when there may be 199 men who insist upon one man joining a union, with the sanction if need be of striking, it is no longer a matter of academic argument about liberty—it is a problem which has to be faced.

Dr. Hill: I was impressed by the hon. Member's arguments as to difficulty, as to practical difficulty, and as to convenience, and I have no doubt that the closed shop is of great convenience in some circumstances.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member should know.

Dr. Hill: I am not going to be diverted in my argument. The point I wish to make is that although—[Interruption.] I had better make this point, as I made it earlier tonight, that the British Medical Association, with which I was once associated, is a voluntary body, and——

Mr. Baird: Mr. Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East) rose——

Dr. Hill: No—I am in the middle of dealing with one interjection already. It is a voluntary body, it includes in its membership less than 80 per cent. of the profession, and no one is compelled to join. Indeed, the British Medical Association are now resisting an effort to make (people join by such authorities as the Durham County Council.

Mr. Baird: Does the hon. Member admit that under the Health Act local dental committees have been set up—and I believe also there are medical committees—under pressure from the doctors and dentists, elected by the professions, and that the Ministry—again, under sanction from the medical

and dental professions—have made a forcible levy on every practising dentist? I myself have to pay a levy on my monthly cheque to these local dental committees. They publish a monthly circular—[Interruption.] I am forced to pay that levy to the local dental committee, who publish a circular which very often makes political pronouncements attacking the Government. Furthermore, the local dental committees have a complete and official liaison with the British Dental Association.

Dr. Hill: I think the House will not misunderstand me when I say I do not propose to give way again to have introduced here something which has nothing to do with the closed shop, nothing to do as far as I know with the B.M.A. but some question of dental deductions for expenses. I am coming to my main theme. It is that whatever arguments—and I admit the force of some of them—which may be put forward on grounds of convenience, or practical difficulty, or on the grounds, in the past, of a union not having achieved recognition, on the grounds in some cases of the protection of a craft—whatever force those arguments may have had in the past, I assert that it is fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle that any man should be compelled to join any organisation of any kind.

Mr. Fernyhough: What about the Army?

Dr. Hill: There are circumstances in which the State for its own protection imposes a majority decision, but let this be said, that where the State decides to conscript men to His Majesty's Forces this House sees that the right of conscience is preserved. The position seems to me to be that where there is an important principle, an important freedom, involved, whether it be in the field of religious freedom, whether it be in the field of freedom on conscientious grounds from military service, it is right that the majority should respect the view of the minority. Believing that principle to be a sound one, I say that the fundamental attitude which has been revealed this evening to be the attitude of a substantial number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite is an attitude which is illiberal and an attitude which is destructive of an important freedom of the individual.
May I refer to one or two practical points, speaking as one who until some months ago was involved in collective bargaining on behalf of a not unimportant body. I hope the House will believe me when I say that this is not to score debating points. If there is one thing that keeps an organisation on its toes it is the right of its members to resign. There is nothing like 100 resignations coming in on one morning for shaking the managing groups and committees of an organisation, and I believe it to be wrong from the angle of trade unionism that members shall be brought in under duress.
Again, any good trade union, association or club wants the right to expel the unsuitable and unwanted member. Are we going to allow a situation to develop in which a union may want to expel a member, on some personal grounds, and that that action must carry with it the loss of the man's livelihood, or, in the case of nationalised industries, the loss of his skill as well? Is that a reasonable proposition? I cannot expect to carry the whole House with me when I say from experience that it is not a bad thing, for the stimulation of a representative body, to have a lesser union, a lesser body, on its fringe. At least, it is not a bad thing to have the prospect of that happening. I am convinced that unless, in fact, membership of a trade union is kept on a voluntary basis, the trade unions themselves will suffer in spirit, in efficiency and in rights.

Mr. Fernyhough: I wonder whether the hon. Member would say that a gentleman, who has appeared before the tribunal as being registered as a conscientious objector, ought not, because of that fact, to be sacked by a local authority and not allowed to follow his normal profession?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member has asked me my view, and I will give it quite freely. I think it would be wrong, on the part of a local authority, to terminate the appointment, but I know that at least one local authority did it during the war. I believe it to be wrong to terminate the appointment of a man who has a conscientious objection, but may I just read a letter——

Dr. Morgan: Dr. Morgan (Warrington) rose——

Dr. Hill: No, I cannot give way. I know the hon. Member too well.

[Interruption.] I will ignore the zoological noises. Before leaving the point, I want to read from a letter which I received this morning from someone——

Dr. Morgan: On a point of order. May I ask whether it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to make statements quite contrary to the policy of his organisation?

Mr. Speaker: The statements which the hon. Gentleman makes are his responsibility, and not a matter of order.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) was for some time one of my masters, but never, I am glad to say, one of my teachers.
This letter is from someone who describes himself—[Interruption]—no, not as a Tory, but as the President of the Durham Branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Society. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Tory trade union."] May I refer to what he says, because it is very apt? He says that he believed in anybody being a member of a representative union, without a person being coerced into membership. In his trade union, of which he has been branch President, he had found that to persuade paid better dividend than any attempt at coercion. I do commend that argument.
I want to examine what, in fact, has happened, what the Ministers have done, and what has been the result in Durham. As I understand it, the Ministers' position—and I think the words cover the position of both Ministers—is that they have expressed the view that the function of a local authority is to administer the most efficient services, that they are against the unilateral requirement of the kind we have been discussing, and that, in the event of inefficiency, educational or medical, appearing—and in that event only—they are capable of stronger action.
I thought that the question put by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) to the right hon. Gentleman, "Have you the power to stop this thing?" was the most significant question of all. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly fair in the answer he gave to the House. He made it perfectly plain that it was under default powers or under grant powers that he might subsequently be able to act. What is the position today? Within the limitations imposed upon the Ministers, they have done all that is possible.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, we have to get the two sides together.

Dr. Hill: They have done all that is possible in an official sense as between Minister and local authority.

Dr. Morgan: As I was instructed to do for the B.M.A.

Dr. Hill: But the position still remains in Durham, as in half a dozen authorities in this country, that, in fact, candidates are asked the question whether or not they belong to a union. In principle that is exactly the same as sacking an existing staff and requiring them as a condition of re-employment to produce evidence of trade union membership. For all his persuasiveness and good will, which I readily recognise, the right hon. Gentleman is unable to do very much more except, as he said, to bring the parties together. But it is not only a question of discussions between the N.U.T. and the County Council. There is a principle involved which affects every employee of Durham County Council, and, incidentally, every man, woman and child in this country.
There is a principle of fundamental importance involved. Therefore, I would say this. Bearing in mind local autonomy—and I welcome that part of the Amendment, for it is important to recognise the importance of local autonomy in this matter—and bearing in mind the desire in the third part of the Amendment that a solution shall be reached—a desire we all share—I am bound to ask, in relation to the first part of the Amendment approving the attitude hitherto adopted by His Majesty's Government, whether, in fact, that attitude is such as to lead this House to praise His Majesty's Government.
In this limited field, and to a very limited, and, let us admit it, as yet an unsatisfactory, stage to which the position has been brought—for it is unsatisfactory that the decision should still be on the minute book of the Durham County Council that they can still decide to act on a decision already reached—it is still a matter of public concern and regret that, in fact, they are putting that question to intending candidates, as are a number of authorities.
The point I want to come to is this. How is it that His Majesty's Govern-

ment are in so relatively weak a position as to be able only to offer advice until things have gone so badly wrong that they can undertake default or grant powers? How is that? I am not going into the temperamental, emotional and other reasons which led to the repeal of the 1927 Act. I am not a psychiatrist anyway. The fact has to be faced, as was brought out by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. J. Cooper), I think, that this situation in which a local authority is free to do this thing has been brought about by the repeal of the relevant subsection of Section 6 of the 1927 Act. Like it or not, that is the position. The Government in this case, and in similar cases, are in the position that their action in repealing that Section—and I refer only to that Section—has been taken by the Durham County Council, on their own statement, to mean that the Government no longer think this to be a reprehensible thing, that the Government no longer forbid it, but leave it to the discretion of the local authority.
The odd part about it is that the Attorney-General in dealing with this Section asked why should not local authorities be in the same position as anybody else, but the right hon. Gentlemen who are dealing with it are bringing in new and special pleading into this field so that local authorities might not do so others do. Here we come to that part of the Amendment that applauds the attitude of His Majesty's Government and I suggest the Government have to make plain exactly what is their attitude. They have tied one hand behind their back and so made themselves ineffectual with Durham County Council. They are rather like drunkards addressing a temperance meeting. I must ask the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), to forgive me for associating him with drunkards, as I must ask members of Durham County Council to forgive me for associating them with teetotallers.
The point I want to stress is that the Government place themselves in this dilemma, and before we applaud the attitude of His Majesty's Government we are entitled to know what is that attitude. Which is the right one? Is the right one the one that led to the repeal of Section 6, allowing local authorities to do this thing, or the approaches they are now making to local authorities with all the difficulty that


arises out of their own action. Where lies the truth? I think it is reasonable to ask this question, as the purpose of the Amendment is to introduce this applauding of the Government and, no doubt with the position of certain prominent members of the Durham County Council in the minds of the Front Bench, to escape the position that hon. Gentlemen opposite might have to participate in approving a Motion regretting the action of Durham County Council.
Already I notice that the guilty conscience is at work in some of the approaches to Durham County Council, for one of the lines taken with Durham County Council was to condemn this unilateral action. If they honestly believed that the closed shop and this kind of totalitarian pressure was wrong they would have condemned bilateral action as well. So I say we are entitled to know exactly where the Government stand in this matter. In putting that I must say this—this matter is of importance outside the field of local government, for the example of local government authority will naturally be followed in other fields, and if there is one thing which has revolted and humiliated the conscience of the people of this country in recent years it is the spectacle of men being hounded from their jobs because they decline to belong to a trade union.
I study, with many other hon. Members—possibly even hon. Members on the other side of the House—the publications of the Labour Party. I studied a document recently——

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member does not understand them.

Dr. Hill: Maybe; I must come to the hon. Member for Warrington for understanding. I studied this document and I discovered that amongst the freedoms to which they attach themselves there are a number of things like the freedom of worship and of assembly which were won long before they were ever heard of; and there is one, in particular, mentioned in an early page of the document—"Every man has the freedom to work." Why were they not honest, and why did not they add, "Unless you are a Plymouth brother?" Why did they not add, "Unless you are an employee of the Durham County Council who will not produce his card?"
The reason is that the Government are having it both ways. [HON. MEMBERS: "Non-party!"] That is always the epithet which is thrown around when something a little discomforting is being said. Was the contribution of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring nonparty? Let us have vigorous party exchanges on this matter.

Mr. Blyton: I suggest that the accusation about non-party speeches should be made to the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.

Dr. Hill: I have the painful experience of gazing on the other side of the House. In conclusion, I would say to the House that, concealed behind a local event is an issue of wider importance. Just as was concealed behind the Willesden event—a midwife of 30 years' service, a deputy matron of the hospital, was told that she would be sacked within a month if she did not join a union—so there is concealed behind this event a profound issue of human liberty affecting everybody in the land. We are entitled to know whether the effusive and comforting language of the publication from which I quoted is the real truth or whether the repeal of Section 6 which made this dastardly thing possible is the real truth. I suggest that the Government are not to be applauded but are to be condemned.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

9.59 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I rise to join issue—[Interruption.]—I want, if possible, to join in this debate. I have not spoken in the House for months. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) has treated us to a histrionic exhibition which is quite common to him, as those who know him understand. [Interruption.] As I have been interrupted so many times I will sit down and meet the hon. Gentleman elsewhere.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 298.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Baker, P. A. D.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Alport, C. J. M.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bennett, William (Woodside)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Banks, Col. C.
Birch, Nigel


Arbuthnot, John
Baxter, A. B.
Bishop, F. P.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Beamish, Major Tufton
Black, C. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bell, R. M.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Boothby, R




Bossom, A. C.
Heath, Edward
Nicholson, G.


Bowen, E. R. {Cardigan)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bower, Norman (Harrow, West)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
Noble, Cmdr. A H P


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nugent, G. R H


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nutting, Anthony


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D


Braine, B. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hollis, M. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hope, Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A
Osborne, C.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Perkins, W. R. D


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pickthorn, K.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Powell, J. Enoch


Carson, Hon. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prescott, S.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Colonel James (Glasgow)
Raikes, H. V.


Clyde, J. L.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R


Colegate, A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Redmayne, M


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Remnant, Hon. P


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Jennings, R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)


Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kaberry, D.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crouch, R. F.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Ropner, Col. L


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Russell, R. S.


Cundiff, F. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Cuthbert, W. N.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Savory, Prof. D. L


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott, Donald


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (M'ntg'mery)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Shepherd, William


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


de Chair, Somerset
Lindsay, Martin
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


De la Bère, R.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F.
Llewellyn, D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Digby, S. W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Snadden, W. McN


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Soames, Capt. C.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spearman, A. C. M


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth. S.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Dunglass, Lord
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stevens, G. P


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Eccles, D. M.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)




Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Eden, Rt. Hon A.
McAdden, S. J.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
McCallum, Major D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Erroll, F. J.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Studholme, H. G


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Summers, G. S


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
McKibbin, A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fort, R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, John
Maclay, Hon. John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Teeling, W.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teevan, T. L


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gage, C. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MacPherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Gammans, L. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Marples, A. E.
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Gates, Maj. E. E
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmn)
Tilney, John


Glyn. Sir Ralph
'Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Touche, G. C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Granville, Edgar (Eye)
Maude, John (Exeter)
Turton, R. H.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maudling, R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Medlicott, Brig. F
Vane, W. M. F.


Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Mellor, Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harden, J. R. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Monckton, Sir Walter
Wade, D. W.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison. Rt. Hon. W S (Cirencester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hay, John
Nabarro, G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Watkinson, H.







Webbe, Sir H. (London)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
York, C


Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)
Wills, G.



White, Baker (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Charles (Torquay)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Mr. Drewe and


Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wood, Hon. R.
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Adams, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ewart, R.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Field, Capt. W J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Logan, D. G.


Ayles, W. H.
Follick, M.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Foot, M. M.
McAllister, G.


Baird, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, J. E.


Balfour, A
Freeman, John (Watford)
McGhee, H. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McGovern, J


Bartley, P.
Gaitskell, fit. Hon. H. T. N.
McInnes, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mack, J. D.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gibson, C. W.
McKay, John (Wallseml)


Benson, G.
Gilzean, A.
McLeavy, F.


Beswick, F.
Glanville, James (Consett)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Woolwich, E.)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mainwaring, W. H


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
Manuel, A. C.


Booth, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gunter, R. J.
Messer, F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Brockway, A. F.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mikardo, Ian


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchison, G. R


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moeran, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hardman, D. R
Morgan, Dr H. B


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Morley, R.


Burton, Miss E.
Hargreaves, A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Harrison, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Catlaghan, L. J.
Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.


Carmichael, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mulley, F. W


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mulvey, A.


Chretwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Murray, J. T.




Nally, W.


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Cocks, F. S.
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
O'Brien, T.


Collick, P.
Houghton, D.
Oldfield, W. H.


Collindridge, F.
Hoy, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Cook, T. F.
Hubbard, T.
Orbach, M.


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Padley, W. E.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pannell, T. C.


Crawley, A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pargiter, G. A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Parker, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paton, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Janner, B.
Pearson, A.


Daines, P.
Jay, D. P. T.
Peart, T. F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Poole, C.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Popplewell, E


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Porter, G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.


de Freitas, G.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.


Deer, G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Delargy, H. J
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rankin, J.


Diamond, J.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Rees, Mrs. D.


Dodds, N. N.
Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.


Donnelly D.
Kenyon, C.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Rhodes, H.


Dye, S.
Kinley, J.
Richards, R


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Robens, A.


Edelman, M.
Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)







Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Sylvester, G O.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W


Rose, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wigg. G.


Royle, C
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W)
Wilkes, L


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Shurmer, P L E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, David (Neath)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Simmons, C. J.
Tomney, F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don Valley)


Slater, J.
Turner-Samuels, M
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Snow, J. W.
Ungoed-Thomas A. L
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Sorensen, R. W
Usborne, H.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Vernon, W. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sparks, J. A.
Wallace, H. W
Wise, F. J.


Steele, T
Watkins, T. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)
Woods, Rev. G. S


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Weitzman, D.
Wyatt, W. L.


Strachey, Rt. Hon J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Younger, Hon. K


Stross, Dr. Barnett
West, D. G.



Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclay, Hon. John


Alport, C. J. M.
Gage, C. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Arbuthnot, John
Gammans, L. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromfey)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Maitland, Cmdr, J. W.


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baker, P. A. D.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marples, A. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Banks, Col. C.
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)


Baxter, A. B.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maude, John (Exeter)


Beamish, Major Tufton
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Maudling R.


Bell, R. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mellor, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvey, Air. Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Monckton, Sir Walter


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
Moore, Lt.-Col., Sir Thomas


Birch Nigel
Hay, John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bishop, F. P.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Black, C. W.
Heald, Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Heath, Edward
Nabarro, G.


Boothby, R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bossom, A. C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicholson, G.


Bower, Norman
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony


Braine, B. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney
Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Bullock, Capt M.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pickthorn, K.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Col. Ralph {East Grinstead)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Prescott, S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Clyde, J. L.
Hutchison, Colonel James
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Colegate, A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Raikes, H. V.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Rayner, Brigadier R


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jennings, R.
Redmayne, M.


Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Ronton, D. L. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kaberry, D.
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crouch, R. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robson-Brown, W.


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder. Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Cundiff, F. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col L.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ross, Sir Ronald (Londonderry)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Russell, R. S.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


de Chair, Somerset
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Savory, Prof. D. L.


De la Bère, R.

Scott, Donald


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepherd, William


Digby, S. W.
Lindsay, Martin
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Donner, P. W
Llewellyn, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd Selwyn (Wirral)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Dunglass, Lord
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C M


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Eccles, D. M.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Erroll, F. J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Stevens, G. P


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
McCallum, Major D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fort, R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Foster, John
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (stone)
McKibbin, A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
 McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.







Summers, G. S.
Turner, H. F. L.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Sutcliffe, H.
Turton, R. H.
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Teeling, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Teevan, T. L.
Vosper, D. F.
Wills, G.


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
York, C.


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)



Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, John
Watkinson, H.
Mr. Drewe and


Touche, G. C.
Webbe, Sir Harold
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Diamond, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Adams, H. R.
Dodds, N. N.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Donnelly, D.
Jenkins, R. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Dye, S.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edelman, M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepnev)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Keenan, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Edward {Lowestoft)
Kenyon, C.


Baird, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Balfour, A.
Ewart, R.
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Fernyhough, E.
Kinley, J.


Bartley, P.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Finch, H. J.
Lang, Gordon


Benn, Wedgwood
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, G.
Follick, M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Beswick, F.
Foot, M. M.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Woolwich, E.)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lindgren, G. S.


Blyton, W. R.
Gibson, C W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Boardman, H.
Gllzean, A.
Logan, D. G.


Booth, A.
Glanville, James (Consett)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Bottomley, A. G.
Gooch, E. G.
McAllister, G.


Bowden, H. W.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McGhee, H. G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McGovern, J.


Brockway, A. F
Grenfell, D. R.
McInnes, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Grey, C. F.
Mack, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Broughton, Dr. A D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gunter, R. J
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Burke, W. A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mainwaring, W H.


Burton, Miss E
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)



Carmichael, J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Hamilton, W. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Chetwynd, G. R
Hardman, D. R
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Clunie, J.
Hardy, E. A.
Mellish, R. J.


Cocks. F. S.
Hargreaves, A
Messer, F.


Coldrick, W.
Harrison, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Collick, P.
Hastings, S.
Mikardo, Ian


Collindridge, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cook, T. F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)
Moeran, E. W.


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Hobson, C. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cove, W. G.
Holman, P.
Morley, R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Crawley, A.
Houghton, D.
Mort, D. L.


Crosland, C. A. R
Hoy, J.
Moyle, A.


Crossman, R. H. S
Hubbard, T.
Mulley, F. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Mulvey, A.


Daines, P.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Murray, J. D.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nally, W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Brien, T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oldfield, W. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Orbach, M.


Delargy, H. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Padley, W. E.







Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Simmons, C. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pannell, T. C.
Slater, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
West, D. G.


Parker, J.
Snow, J. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Paton, J.
Sorensen, R. W
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Peart, T. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Poole, C.
Steele, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Popplewell, E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, G.


Porter, G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkes, L.


Proctor, W. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wilkins, W. A.


Pryde, D J
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Pursey, Commander H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Rankin, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, David (Neath)


Rees, Mrs. D.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Reeves, J.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Reid, Thomas {Swindon)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thomas, George {Cardiff)
Williams, W. T (Hammersmith, S.)


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Richards, R.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Robens, A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wise, F. J.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Timmons, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tomney, F.
Wyatt, W. L.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Yates, V. F.


Royle, C.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.
Younger, Hon. K.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Usborne, H.



Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Vernon, W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Watkins, T. E.

Proposed words be there added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House, while approving the attitude already adopted by His Majesty's Government, and being anxious not to interfere with the autonomy of local authorities, hopes that the discussions now proceeding between the Durham Council Council and some of the associations will lead to an amicable settlement of the points at issue.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr. Herbert Morrison discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. Ede added.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

BISHOPS (RETIREMENT) MEASURE

10.12 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I beg to move,
That the Bishops (Retirement) Measure, 1950, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure has been examined by 15 hon. Members of this House, together with an equal number of Members of another place, who form the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, and they have reported upon it. It does not affect prejudicially the constitutional rights of

any of His Majesty's subjects other than those of bishops whose rights are necessarily affected by a Measure of this nature.
The Ecclesiastical Committee are informed that this Measure passed through all its stages in the Church Assembly without any division, and that a show of hands on the final motion for its approval indicated an overwhelming majority in its favour. I anticipate that the House will be able to assent to this Motion without any prolonged discussion and without bringing up any particularly controversial points.
I think that I shall best serve the interest of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite if I give a brief description of this Measure, and then if, contrary to my expectations, any points are raised, perhaps I may reply to them at the end of the discussion. Part I of the Measure introduces a procedure by which a bishop can be retired if he is incapacitated by physical or mental infirmity from the due performance of his episcopal duties. Hitherto, in such a case, the only remedy open to the Church was to appoint a bishop-coadjutor. I think that the House will feel that this change is an improvement, and if hon. Members will look at the provisions in detail, they will find that the rights of a bishop in this respect are reasonably safeguarded.
Part II allows for a bishop voluntarily to resign if he feels that it is not in the good interests of the diocese that he should continue. The normal case of this kind is where a man has been appointed to a diocese as bishop and, after a quarter of a century, genuinely feels that he has "shot his bolt" and that the interests of his diocese would be best served by the appointment of a new man. The effect of this is almost exclusively to enable a man in that position honourably to offer his resignation and to retain a proportionate part of the pension rights he would have received had he gone on for the full length of his time.
Part III is a Part which may raise one or two points, and I should therefore like to comment on it, as did the Bishop of Winchester in another place, and say that this Part fulfils the doctrine of fair shares for all. In 1947 the Church Assembly passed, and this House approved, the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, which allows for certain processes of disciplinary action. About two years later a further Measure was passed, the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, which provided a corresponding procedure in the case of deans, archdeacons and other church dignitaries. This Measure now deals correspondingly with the case of bishops. I do not suppose that in any century there will be many occasions, if any, when this Measure will be brought into play. Nevertheless, as an abstract matter of justice it did not seem right to leave a blank in the legislation.
This Measure would have come before the House in 1948 or 1949 had not the Ecclesiastical Committee during the last Parliament considered that the first draft was defective in that it allowed bishops to be disciplined for their social and political opinions and activities and on account of matters of doctrine. The Ecclesiastical Committee in the last Parliament thought that that was wrong and sent the Measure back to the Church Assembly in order that it should be re-drawn so as to make it quite clear that on matters of doctrine and ritual, and on matters of political activity and opinions, the provisions of the Measure would not apply. I hope that the House will not blow hot and cold on its old opinions and, having sent the Measure back two years ago for reconsideration on the grounds that it did not contain something, now object to the

fact that it does contain what on a previous occasion they complained it did not contain.
These questions of political activities and opinions have been dealt with with very great care. There are two grounds on which a complaint can be made. It can be made on the grounds that a bishop has been guilty of conduct unbecoming to the office and work of a bishop or guilty of serious, persistent and continuous neglect of his duty. I hope my hon. Friends will follow this with great care. As far as political opinions are concerned, no complaint may be brought under either of these two heads. As far as political activity is concerned, no complaint can be brought under the heading of a bishop having been guilty of unbecoming conduct, but if the political or social activity is carried on to an extent which amounts to a continual or persistent neglect of his duties by the bishop, then a complaint can be brought on the grounds of such neglect. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

Mr. Blackburn: On the construction of the words "social or political opinions," would the hon. Gentleman include "social or political opinions of a totalitarian nature" so that any bishop would be entitled to express opinions of a totalitarian nature as distinct from purely political opinions?

Sir R. Acland: What the hon. Member suggests would be outside the provisions of this Measure, whether those opinions were of the Right or the Left.
The remainder of the Measure deals with procedure, with which I think the House would not wish to interfere, as the decisions seem good to the Church Assembly. The procedure is that when a complaint is made the Archbishop can judge of its serious nature, if it is signed by six clergymen and six members of a diocesan conference. They may decide to refer it to the Upper House of the Convocation of the Province, and this may then appoint a commission which will consider the matter in detail. The Commission report would then go to the Upper House, which might then decide, if the matter was not dismissed by the Commission, either to take no action, or to censure the bishop, or to request the Archbishop to declare the See vacant. If the Archbishop did so declare, that dec-


Iaration would have no effect until is was confirmed by an Order in Council.
I hope that the House will find that these are reasonable provisions, and, without spending any more time on them, I commend this Measure to the serious consideration of hon. Members.

10.24 p.m.

Captain John Crowder: I beg to second the Motion.
The House will agree that there are plenty of safeguards in this Measure, and it has been fully considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which has on it representatives from both sides of the House and also Members from another place. As the Measure has had all these safeguards put into it, I hope the House will agree to it without a very long discussion.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: With most of what the hon. Baronet has said, I imagine few of us would disagree. I am sure that the House approves of the general intention of the Measure, which was commended to me a few days ago by one of the bishops in rather more colloquial language than that used tonight by the hon. Baronet. This bishop said: "It's quite simple really. It's just a machine for getting rid of those of us who get too ga-ga." As such, it is no doubt eminently desirable.
I have one or two points on which I shall not detain the House long. They arise out of what my hon. Friend has already said in relation to the debate that we had in December, 1946, on the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure when, at one o'clock in the morning, the last Parliament approved it by 86 votes to 74. In the debate there was a good deal of discussion on political opinions and political activities among the clergy. One point which those who, from both sides of the House, opposed the Measure ventured to stress rather strongly was that it was dangerous that, although political opinions were rightly safeguarded, there was no safeguard at all against proceedings under the Measure for political activities.
The sponsors of that Measure were themselves divided on that point. The hon. Member who introduced it, now in another place, Lord Burden, said, rather

vaguely, that of course the words "political opinions" were intended to cover political activities. On the other hand, Mr. Willink, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said quite the contrary and that those who engaged in political activities were liable to a serious charge of neglect of duties.
My hon. Friend and the Church Assembly have found, in this Bishops Measure, an extremely ingenious device for providing two safeguards for excluding proceedings on both grounds. There is to be no complaint about political opinions on the ground that they constitute either unbecoming conduct or neglect of duty or about political activities leading to a charge of unbecoming conduct, although they may lead to a charge of neglect of duties. My hon. Friend commended that to the House as applying the principle of fair shares to these various matters. I agree that this is meant to be fair shares; but the attempt has not succeeded. The net effect is to put bishops in an advantageous position in comparison with the ordinary parish clergyman. A clergyman can be proceeded against for unbecoming conduct if he indulges in political activity. A bishop cannot. My hon. Friend must admit that there is that discrepancy.
I am sorry to have to add that Parliament has been misled on this matter. In the official White Papers which hon. Members will no doubt have studied with the care that they deserve, the actual Measure is accompanied with the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee on the Measure, and in that report is an Appendix containing the comments and explanations submitted by the Legislative Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee. No doubt very largely on that basis the Ecclesiastical Committee came to the conclusion to recommend to this House that the Measure should proceed. Those comments and explanations are weighty and authoritative. They are signed on behalf of the Legislative Committee by the Most Reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I am sorry to say that they contain a gross misstatement of fact. This comment says in paragraph 7 on the first page of the Appendix:
A Bishops Retirement Measure also dealing with both disability and discipline was passed at the same time but was not laid before Parliament"—
I think my hon. Friend rather gave the


impression that it had been when he said that this House should not blow hot and cold in this matter—
…because the Ecclesiastical Committee were of opinion that 'social and political opinions and activities' which in the Measures concerning Incumbents and Dignitaries were excluded as grounds for accusations of misconduct…
I have already shown that that does not correspond with the facts, and if any hon. Member doubts it, I will read the relevant subsection from the actual Incumbents (Discipline) Measure. In Part I, Section 2, it is said that
Proceedings may be instituted under this Measure…in respect of conduct unbecoming…or of serious, persistent or continuous neglect of duty…but not…in respect of any question of doctrine, ritual or ceremonial, or of the social or political opinions of the incumbent.
There is not a word about activities. But the Archbishop of York and the Legislative Committee told the Ecclesiastical Committee that both opinions and activities were excluded from that Measure. They are simply not telling the truth when they say that, and I am very sorry that my colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee, for whom I have the highest regard, as we all have, did not see fit to examine a little more closely the evidence that was laid before them by the Legislative Committee before they recommended this House to proceed to endorse this Measure.
Let me take by way of illustration the case under this Measure and the preceding Measure of any bishop in the Church of England, say, the Bishop of Rochester and one of his clergy. It is a pure coincidence, I know, that my hon. Friend who moved this Motion happens to be a lay reader in the diocese of Rochester. It is clear that the clergyman of whom we have heard in another connection earlier this day, to which I will not refer further, is a very politically-minded clergyman. It may well be that he is also a politically active clergyman. It is quite clear that the political prejudices of the Bishop of Rochester have led him to conceive a violent and extreme hostility to this clergyman to the extent that he has written to him quite improperly suggesting that he should resign his living. It may well be that it is the passing of the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure by this House that has encouraged these arrogant prelates——

Sir Patrick Spens: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make personal reflections on a Member of another place?

Mr. Speaker: That is the difficulty. I think personal reflections on a Member of another place should not be made. That is quite out of order here.

Mr. Bing: Further to that point of order. Surely we are discussing the need for disciplining bishops. How can we do that if we cannot illustrate it by referring to the conduct of bishops?

Mr. Speaker: One need not do it by naming individual bishops.

Mr. Driberg: May I with great respect, Mr. Speaker, draw your attention to a Ruling which you gave on 29th October, 1946, in a case which seems to me to be fairly analogous, when we were discussing the Motion which led to the setting up of the Royal Commission on the Press? Some hon. Friends of mine were making rather free with the names of Lord Kemsley, Lord Rothermere, Lord Beaverbrook and several Members of another place, and an hon. Member opposite, the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew), who is now one of your Deputies in the Chair, raised a point of order and said:
Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members to discuss a Member of another place?
They had been discussing them in somewhat pejorative terms. You said:
On a motion like this it is quite unavoidable, because after all the noble Lords are-the proprietors of these newspapers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1946; Vol. 428, c. 458.]
I would suggest that in this case we are: discussing bishops in respect of their conduct of the administration of their dioceses and not as Members of another place.

Mr. Speaker: My Ruling then is not analogous to this case. I said that we could discuss the noble lords, because that was part of their commercial activities, and was nothing to do with their seat in another place. The bishops are there because they are bishops, and it has nothing to do with any outside activity. They are there because they are clergymen.

Mr. Driberg: I would say, with great respect, that I am sure every bishop on the bench is there because he has a genuine vocation to spiritual life, and not because he enjoys the emoluments attached thereto. None the less, they do not serve in an entirely honorary capacity.

Mr. Blackburn: May I entirely follow your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and venture to make this suggestion. In so far as a bishop is a Member of another place, and because he is a Member of another place, it would be improper to reflect in any way on him; but, in so far as he exercises discipline under the Measure we are now considering, I venture to suggest, at any rate in the abstract, that one is entitled to discuss the powers of a bishop which he does not possess as a Member of the Upper House.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think we could airways mention the facts without making a personal attack on any individual and giving an illustration of what someone might have done. To attack a personality is wrong.

Mr. Driberg: I am prepared to generalise my illustration if you prefer me to do so, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue my speech without referring to the Bishop of Rochester. I have in any case, I think, sufficiently established my point. As I was saying, it may well be that the passing of the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure encouraged some of these arrogant prelates to believe they had a right to behave to the clergy in this way. Under that Measure, any bishop—I do not name any particular one—could initiate proceedings against any clergyman for unbecoming conduct in respect of political activities. But under this Measure which we are now discussing no comparable proceedings can be initiated against that bishop, however scandalous his political activities might seem to be to however substantial a number of the clergy or laity in his diocese or indeed ibis brother bishops.
I have two reasons for taking exception to this Measure, and I hope my hon. Friend who proposed it will tell us at the end of the debate that he will take it away and look at it again, and see what can be done about it. My first objection is the serious one I have mentioned—the slipshod and misleading nature of the comment presented with the Measure. We have in this House

no amending power on these Assembly Measures. We have no power to amend them in detail: all We can do if we feel there is a strong enough case is to reject them or ask the sponsors to withdraw them for the time being. My second point is that there should really be parity in this matter between bishops and the lesser clergy, and my hon. Friend was not giving a fair picture, although I know he meant to, when he said this represented fair shares for all.
I should like to ask the hon. baronet if he could possibly give us this assurance, that he would see if it were possible to introduce an amending Measure to the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure to tighten up that Measure on the question of political activities as well as political opinions. If he could give us some assurance of that kind, I think most of us would have no particular objection to this Measure, which, so far as it goes in its kind, is unexceptionable. But if he cannot give us any assurance of that kind, it might be necessary to divide the House tonight—which I do not want to have to do on this Measure—to draw attention to this inequity and make sure that steps will be taken to give ordinary parish clergy some protection in this respect against wolves in shepherds' mitres.

Captain Crowder: May I ask the hon. Member, before he sits down, how he expects the hon. baronet to give an assurance that he will bring in an amending Measure? It would have to be brought before the Church Assembly and to start right from the beginning again.

Mr. Driberg: That is one of the difficulties about this sort of procedure, I agree; but if the hon. baronet can give me even an assurance that he personally will use his strongest influence with his fellow Church Commissioners—an assurance which he might be able to give us—that will be satisfactory.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The remarks I have to offer on this Measure will not be controversial in the sense of those to which the House has just listened. They are divided under two heads, the first relating to the form of this Measure and the latter to its contents. When a Measure of this kind leaves this House and receives the Royal Assent, it becomes a Statute of the Realm


just as much as any other Act of Parliament which goes through what we regard as the normal procedure, and this House is as much responsible for the form in which it reaches the Statute Book as it is for the form of any other Act which we pass.
Therefore, we have the right to claim that these Measures should reach this House in a form which is satisfactory. That claim is all the stronger because under the enabling Act we are not able to amend these Measures. If we could amend them, it might not perhaps matter so much in what degree of perfection they reached us; but we are obliged either to pass them as they stand or reject them.
In many respects the form of this Measure is very unsatisfactory and such as may eventually cause trouble, should it have to be interpreted by the courts and should the procedure, particularly that in Part III, ever have to be put into effect. I am aware that the Measure has had a long and fairly complicated history. I believe I am right in saying it has been through the hands of three successive draftsmen; but the fact that it embodies compromises and has had that sort of genesis is no excuse for it reaching this House in a form which we should not tolerate in work presented to us by the Parliamentary draftsmen. This matter was mentioned in the Church Assembly before the Measure left it, but at too late a stage for it to be considered practicable for the form to be amended.
I must draw attention to two examples of the kind of complaint which I have in mind, in the hope, at any rate in the case of subsequent Measures, of ensuring that they reach this House, and therefore leave this House, in a more satisfactory form. Both examples are from Part III, Section 5. There, after certain procedures have been put into effect, the archbishop may refer the complaint against a bishop to the Upper House of Convocation of the Province "for enquiry and report." Then, if we read through the Measure, we find in Section 7, that, so far from the Upper House of Convocation, to which the complaint is referred "for enquiry and report," doing anything of the kind, they declare the complaint to be unfounded, or they decide not to take further action, or they pass censure upon the bishop, or ask for the bishopric to be declared vacant. Most, if not all, this cannot conceivably

be described as a process of "enquiry and report." We have, therefore, a complete conflict between two Sections of this Measure, which would, if they came to be interpreted, cause great embarrassment.
My second example, of defective drafting is also in Section 5, subsection (1). The bishop takes into consultation three bishops from a panel, and then there come these words:
And if the Archbishop and the three bishops so selected, or a majority of them, determine that the complaint is serious.…
It is quite uncertain, from that wording, whether the majority is a majority of the three bishops, or a majority of the four persons, namely, the Archbishop and the three bishops. This might well be a material point. One may come to the conclusion that on the face of it the wording means a majority of the four persons. On the other hand, the Legislative Committee has reached the other conclusion. If we look at that Committee's report, we find clearly that the Committee thinks that it means a majority of the three bishops.
That is the sort of doubt which ought not to be possible in any Measure which passes this House in order to find its place on the Statute Book. I repeat that I hope that in future, means will be used to ensure that the drafting of these Measures is up to the high standard to which we in this House are accustomed.
Now I pass to the point to which I particularly wish to refer, which relates exclusively to Part III of the Measure. Although the innovation made in the law by this Part is an important one, I do not think that the nature of it has been properly conveyed, either in another place by the Lord Bishop of Winchester, or, with the greatest respect, in this House by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland)——

Mr. Holman: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument. As far as I understand, a majority of four is three. If there are three to one, I should think it must include the Archbishop.

Mr. Powell: My difficulty is not in understanding what constitutes a majority of four persons, but whether "them" refers to the three bishops, as the Legislative Committee thought, or to the four


persons, as I am personally rather inclined to think it does, from my reading of the Measure. At least, there is evidence of difficulty of interpretation in this very confusion.
If I may continue with the point of substance which I was about to open, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, in another place, referred to the fact that in this Measure there is no provision for any formal appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and he said that this was a real change in the law. There is, indeed, a real change in the law made by this Measure, but I believe it is worthy of a few minutes of the time of the House to consider exactly what the change is, and also what the change is not.
It is at present quite uncertain what is the appropriate tribunal for dealing with a bishop in respect of alleged offences committed in his episcopal capacity. Bishops have been tried, and deprived, by archbishops sitting with assessors, by Convocation, by the provincial court, and even, on one occasion, by a court of three bishops sitting under a Royal Commission. There is thus a wide range of possibilities as to where the initial jurisdiction lies.
Then there is the further question as to where, from any of this jurisdiction, an appeal would lie. In the case of Bishop King of Lincoln in 1888, the case was tried by the Archbishop with assessors and it appeared, though it is not absolutely certain, that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, did admit the propriety of an appeal to themselves from that court. The question has also arisen whether either an appeal or an original jurisdiction lies with the House of Lords, though in fact it is fairly clear that neither of these jurisdictions exists. The bishops are indeed Members of the Upper House for a reason which originally would have entitled them to trial by peers, namely, that they held of the King-in-chief under feudal law. Since then, they themselves waived their privilege of peerage before the end of the Middle Ages, and they have never since that time been treated as peers. Indeed, the very appellation "House of Peers." applied to the Upper House, is not fully accurate, and there are no grounds for supposing that an original jurisdiction upon the bishops vests in the Upper House.
That being the present uncertainty and the range of possibilities under the law as it is at present, what change in the law does this Measure make? The first thing we must get clear is that where matters of doctrine, ritual, or social or political conduct or opinions are concerned, the law will stand, after we have passed this Measure, exactly as it stands now, so that we have not escaped by passing this Measure from the old perplexity, rendered celebrated by the Goreham case, of an appeal on grounds of doctrine or ritual from the ecclesiastical courts to the lay courts of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The situation in regard to appeal to the Privy Council on matters of ritual and doctrine is still on this form of unbecoming conduct specifically excluded from this Measure and will remain exactly as it is at present.
Secondly, there is still an appeal to the secular courts under this Measure. After We have passed this Measure, a bishop who is censured or deprived by the machinery provided in Part HI, or indeed by the machinery in Part I, of this Measure, can appeal to the secular courts—I imagine in the first place to the High Court, but I would not be certain—but can do so, after this Measure is passed, only upon the grounds that the provisions of this Measure have not been put into effect. There still, therefore, remains an appeal, and ultimately an appeal to the House of Lords, from the ecclesiastical courts and ecclesiastical jurisdiction set up by this Measure, on the grounds that this Measure has not been implemented in any particular case.
Having stated these respects—and they are important respects—in which this Measure leaves the present state of the law unaltered, I come very briefly to those respects in which it alters it, because the resorts in which jurisdiction is vested by this Measure are curious, though perhaps not illogical. There is, in the first place, a jury of presentment, consisting of an Archbishop and three Bishops, corresponding as it were to the Grand Jury under our old criminal law. Then there is a decision by the Upper House of Convocation, after examination by a Commission. In a sense that is perhaps a kind of rudimentary trial by peers, but of a very special kind.
Then, finally, judgment; the jurisdiction vests in two, and perhaps three,


separate places. The right to pronounce censure vests in the Upper House of Convocation itself; but the right to pronounce sentence of deprivation is in the hands of the Archbishop, who is not obliged to be guided by the advice or the opinions either of the Upper House of Convocation or of the Commission to which they refer the case.

Sir R. Acland: I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the Archbishop cannot deprive the bishop against the will of the Upper House. It is only if the Upper House is against the bishop that the Archbishop has a discretion.

Mr. Powell: Exactly; I am much obliged to the hon. Baronet. The fact remains that jurisdiction, where deprivation is concerned, is in the hands of the Archbishop. Indeed, it is not even ultimately in the hands of the Archbishop, for it remains ultimately in the hands of the Crown.

Sir P. Spens: May I point out that deprivation by the Archbishop declaring the bishopric vacant does not take effect until it is confirmed by His Majesty in Council?

Mr. Powell: I was saying that the ultimate decision is a Crown decision, so that the ultimate jurisdiction does remain after this Measure is passed with the Crown, albeit the Crown in Council, and not the Crown acting on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as might have been the case heretofore. That is a perfectly proper ultimate resort of jurisdiction in this matter, on two grounds. A bishop is a bishop in virtue of holding both the temporalities and spiritualities of his see. He derives both, though by different methods, from the Crown. He holds the temporalities by allegiance to the Crown and does homage to the King for them. He is elected to hold the spiritualities in virtue of letters missive from the Crown. So that that which the Crown both temporarily and spiritually confers is only taken away again ultimately by the act of the Crown.
I hope I have not unduly detained the House by attempting to render a little clearer the nature of the change which we are making in the law on a matter which has for centuries been one from time to time of severe acrimony and debate.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Bing: If I do not traverse exactly the same ground as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that is not because I do not endorse a great many of his arguments, in fact I depart from very few of the arguments he has so cogently advanced, but I feel there is another aspect of this matter at which the House ought to look for a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end (Sir R. Acland), in introducing this Measure, said that we were dealing with the bishops last, and seemed to consider that a matter for congratulation. I do not know, but I should have thought that my hon. Friends would have considered that a matter for regret, and had there been introduced earlier a Measure to deal with the bishops rather the same sort of Measure to deal with the incumbents, we might not now be in some of the difficulties in which we find ourselves.
Secondly, my hon. Friend advanced the argument that this Measure was very unlikely to be used on any occasion and therefore the House ought to pass it. When I heard him say that, I thought I was listening to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place recommending a Government Measure. If I, as I am going to do, invite the House to join with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—if I understood him aright—in dividing the House and rejecting this Measure, I do so because I think we should pass a Measure which is of some use.
It is desirable that there should be some degree of control and some degree of discipline of bishops. Let me give the House a reason why that is so. Bishops are after all, in a position in which they can use their spiritual authority. It is most undesirable that they should be persuaded in any circumstances to use it to assist—I use the term broadly—the temporal ambitions of any Member on either side of this House. It would be most undesirable, for example, were a Member to write to any bishop about one of his constituents and say to him, "Can you bring pressure on him?"
I do not for a moment suggest that such a thing could possibly be done, but let


us just suppose for a moment that some Member—one who is not at the moment in the House—were to write, say, to the dean of a well-known cathedral pointing out that some member of his chapter was not acting in accordance with what he considered to be the correct political line, and that that dean in that case proceeded to put pressure on that member of the chapter. There is not a Member of the House here who would not immediately suggest that the dean in question should be disciplined.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what pressure he thinks the dean could exert on a member of the chapter?

Mr. Bing: Surely he could exert a certain spiritual pressure. But on matters of that sort the hon. Gentleman is a far greater authority than I. Does the hon. Gentleman want to interrupt again?

Mr. Nicholson: Before I interrupt again, I will let the hon. and learned Gentleman display his ignorance still further.

Mr. Bing: If that were the only purpose of the hon. Gentleman, surely he is wasting the time of the House by interrupting.
Now let me say that what should be done in the case of the dean surely should be done in the case of a bishop. Consider how grossly improper it would be—if one can conceive such a thing happening, and I am not for a moment suggesting that anything of that sort would be done—if, say, a clergyman wrote to his Member of Parliament, and such Member of Parliament sent such a letter to the clergyman's bishop with the words, "Can you do something about it?" Well, of course, that would be a matter for the House, and we are not discussing that now; but what we are discussing is whether we have in this Measure machinery for dealing with a bishop who is so blind to the duties of his office that he yields to this sort of political pressure.

Mr. Nicholson: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? Will he please tell the House what steps he thinks the bishop in question can take about it?

Mr. Bing: It is most undesirable that any bishop should be in a position to write such a letter to one of his incumbents, who owes him spiritual duty, and that he should, at the request of a Member of any part of this House or of any person outside—not only of members of this House——

Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Nicholson rose——

Mr. Bing: We have just been addressed very ably by a professor of Greek, I think. He will recall a form of Greek drama, which consists of one man interrupting another almost continuously. That is a type of drama in which I am not proposing to act.
Of course, it need not be a Member of this House who could make such a request that the bishop should bring pressure on one of his clergy. It might be a firm of jam manufacturers, or manufacturers of any sort. Suppose a firm were to write to a bishop saying, "Please discipline your clergy; they are coming out in favour of temperance. We have had letters about temperance from the clergy. How bad it is for trade." Well now, seriously——

Mr. Nicholson: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what powers he thinks a bishop has over his clergy? All these references to Greek drama are most interesting, but we are now discussing the powers of bishops over their clergy. What power does the hon. and learned Gentleman think a bishop has over his clergy?

Mr. Bing: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in one moment. He took part, I see, in the Division on the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure. I wonder why he voted as he did, for obviously he had not listened to the arguments of Mr. Willink on his own Front Bench. Mr. Willink thought that the bishops should be able to discipline their clergy for their political activities. It is improper for this House to pass a Measure which does not contain one word about disciplining a bishop who is prepared to make use of his office for the purpose of bringing political pressure to bear on the incumbents in his diocese. I hope my hon. Friends will oppose this Measure, unless it is withdrawn and sent back to the Assembly so that they may make an appropriate Measure to deal with such a bishop, should such a case arise.
And now to deal with Mr. Willink. On 18th December, 1946, he said with regard to political opinions:
I gather that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Maldon is that the Measure could be amended by the Assembly adding the words 'or activities'. That is an impossible suggestion. It is obvious that the extent of political activity might amount to serious, persistent and continuous neglect of duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1946; Vol. 431. c. 2127.]
In this case it is much more than that. It is not neglect, but using a holy office for the purpose of promoting the cause of one political party against another. I am sorry the Opposition do not support us in this view. Do they think the bishops will always be on their side and therefore they ought to safeguard the rights of the bishops to bring pressure on their clergy?

Mr. Blackburn: Would the hon. Gentleman give one instance in which any bishop has given political support to any party and thereby tried to do something against a clergyman within his own bishopric?

Mr. Bing: I do not wish to delay the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not think there is any need to prevent any bishop or clergyman from indulging in political activities. I myself received a letter from a bishop the other day, although not on a subject which I thought made it necessary to send it on to the Archbishop. There is every reason why bishops and clergymen should take a full part in political activities. I have done my best in this House to see that clergymen had the right to sit in this House. I am not attacking the political rights or activities of the clergy, but I am attacking the fact that someone is in a position to use his spiritual office to bring pressure on his spiritual subordinates, and there is no method in this Measure of dealing with such a person.
When this Measure was first introduced, no doubt such a thought was so far from the minds of the bishops that they could not imagine that one of them could behave in this way, but we should take precautions in case one of them should. One never knows what appointments will be made in the future. I do not wish to be drawn into criticism of any existing appointments, but we should be in a position to deal with this matter. I feel that I certainly must divide the House against this Measure unless there

is an assurance that it will be possible to take these steps.
One of the troubles that some hon. Members have about this Measure is that until it is passed no action can be taken in regard to any matter that has previously arisen. Who knows that there might not arise a case where previous to our passing this Measure there was some bishop who had used his office in this way? The Measure should be drawn in such a way that we could deal immediately with such a case as the House agrees is a gross abuse of the episcopal office, and unless my hon. Friend can see that that is done, I regret that I shall have to divide the House.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I thought for a sentence or two at the beginning of the hon. and learned Member's speech that, unusually, he was going to make a contribution to the debate, but he returned very soon to his usual task of muddying the waters. I will make one remark only on his speech, and I know that it will be echoed by many hon. Members on the other side: I think it contemptible that people who have neither interest nor affection for the Church of England should use an opportunity such as this for pursuing their private witch hunts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Bing: What evidence is there for that accusation?

Mr. MacLeod: I think the evidence of the cheers which greeted my remark and the agreement of many hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order. With regard to any of these Church questions which are settled by law, and over which this House has its responsibility, is it within the right of any hon. Member to cast doubt on the right of all other hon. Members, without exception, to have their say with reference to these questions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think that in general terms that is so. It is also, of course, a rule not to impute motives in this House.

Mr. MacLeod: Mr. MacLeod rose——

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. The hon. Member made a grave personal


accusation against me. Is it your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to invite him to withdraw?

Mr. Blackburn: Further to that point of order. Will the hon. and learned Member say what the personal accusation was?

Mr. MacLeod: I propose, subject to——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is usual in those circumstances, whether a personal imputation was made or not—and I am not clear whether one was made—for an hon. Member to say if a personal imputation was made, and withdraw it.

Mr. MacLeod: I was not conscious of making a personal imputation against the hon. Member. I willingly withdraw—and I say this quite sincerely—if that point was so taken.

Mr. Blackburn: Further to the point of order. You are making a very important Ruling——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman was speaking to the point of order which was raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod).

Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Blackburn rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is a point of order before me at the present moment.

Mr. MacLeod: I would not make an imputation against the hon. and learned Member or any other Member. If it was thought to be so, then I gladly withdraw it. I made a comment which I thought was fair, but perhaps I may be allowed to leave the subject there, which is what I want to do.

Mr. Blackburn: Do I understand it to be your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that an imputation was made? If so, may I know what the imputation was?

Mr. MacLeod: I was not conscious of having made an imputation, but I genuinely want to leave that point. About a week ago, when discussing a very controversial matter, a right hon. Gentleman rose and said that he hoped he might be able to reduce the temperature by making a short statement. I had hoped to be

rather more successful than he was, but I seem to have failed for perhaps the same reason as he did.
I take as my starting point the comments made by the Lord Bishop of Winchester, the chief sponsor of this Measure, before the Church Assembly on 21st June last. In apologising for a certain inexactitude in some of the things he had said, he asked the Assembly to remember that "behind him had been the House of Bishops and that they had shown a fluidity of mind which might be said to be unusual even in the English Episcopacy." I should like to second that statement, because I find the Measure an astonishing piece of slipshod drafting.
A very experienced judicial authority, Sir Cyril Atkinson, raised a number of important points affecting drafting. I find it surprising that everyone obviously regarded Sir Cyril as an amiable eccentric for raising points of drafting in the Church Assembly. His points having been dismissed for the rather odd reason although an attractive one to a Tory, that because no one else had raised points before there could not possibly be any substance in those raised on that occasion, the Chairman of the House of Clergy said that it was not for Parliament to tell the bishops how to discipline themselves. It is fair to say that that is arguable, but it is the duty of Parliament to see that Measures such as this which are presented, and which are just as much a Statute of the Realm as any other Acts when they are passed, are precise in wording and exact in what they propose to do.
I have noted something like a dozen points, none of which I will give to the House, to show that this Measure does not carry out its intention. I know, as does the hon. Baronet, what this Measure is intended to do. We have followed this Measure and read the reports of the Church Assembly, as well as the statement made by the Bishop of Winchester in another place. But these things are not evidence, and if this Measure has ever to be construed, particularly the monstrously inaccurate Part III, I have not the slightest doubt that whoever has to pronounce on it will find himself in the greatest difficulty.
As I have said, in view of the debate that has taken place, I am not going into those matters, but I should like the hon. Baronet to consider this point. These


matters are and should be properly discussed by this House. We are recommending His Majesty to grant the Royal Assent to a Measure. It is a duty of ours to see that nothing slipshod gets through, and I hope that the Church Assembly—I myself am an active member of the Church of England Men's Society—will note the criticisms of drafting substance made by Sir Cyril Atkinson in the Assembly by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), and which I could duplicate a dozenfold. I trust that he will use what influence he has to see that future Church Assembly Measures which are brought before this House are put in a form which is acceptable to the courts of this land.

11.21p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I very much hope that this debate will not degenerate into party exchanges, because obviously this is not a party question. I very much hope that the House will support the Measure as it has come to us from the Ecclesiastical Committee. We can all find fault with the draftsmanship of this Measure, and I think one could find fault with the draftsmanship of a great many Measures which come from the Church Assembly, but I do not think that is a reason which should induce us to reject it. After all, these Measures, and this one in particular, are primarily matters which affect the domestic concerns of the Church of England, and if they choose to draft their Measures in a way which does not come up to the perfection set in this House, that is a matter for which they will suffer and it need not be adduced as a reason for asking us to reject them.
This Measure has received a great deal of attention from the Church Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), in a very amusing speech, has suggested in effect that the Measure does not go far enough and that it differs in some degrees from the parallel Measure passed a few years ago for the purpose of disciplining incumbents. I personally doubt whether in a matter of this kind, when we are discussing the discipline of bishops and of clergymen, we can properly use the analogy of fair shares for all. What is important is that this Measure attempts to define the cases in which some measure of discipline can be brought to bear——

Mr. Bing: Would my hon. Friend agree with me that nothing could bring the Church into greater disrepute than if the bishops were in a position to use their office, without any disciplinary check, for the purpose of bringing political pressure to those who are placed under them?

Mr. Fletcher: I think it would be unfortunate if in any approach we made to this matter we should be unduly concerned about the incident which was brought to the notice of this House on Thursday last—an incident which I hope will become the subject of an inquiry at a later date, an incident which I personally resent at least as much as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch. I deprecate it very profoundly, but I do not personally share the view of my hon. Friend that that episode, which I regard with profound regret and misgiving and which I hope is unprecedented and quite exceptional, is sufficient ground for asking this House to reject this Measure. Even if it is a valid argument that this Measure does not deal with the cases which might occur, it does at any rate produce some improvement on the present position, because for the first time it clarifies the law about the extent to which some measure of discipline may be brought to bear on bishops.
The doubt I feel about the Measure is the ambiguity of its language, in particular with reference to Section 5. In view of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has raised, I think it is important to remind the House exactly what the Measure does provide in the way of political activities of bishops. If hon. Members will turn to the report of the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly to the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House and another place, they will find these words in explanation of the last part of Section 5 of the Measure:
It was felt that while no action should be taken against a bishop for his opinions, it was possible that his activities might amount to neglect of duty. If he chose to devote so much of his time to political or social activities that he failed to carry out his episcopal duties, it was highly undesirable that it should be impossible to take action.
If that means anything it means, as I understand it, that if a bishop chooses to devote a great deal of his time to political and social activities and fails to carry out his episcopal duties, it would be possible


for disciplinary action to be taken against him on the ground of persistent or continuous neglect of duty.

Mr. Driberg: Would my hon. Friend also deal with the point I raised about the misstatement of fact, which is a serious one, because it is the basis of the "fair shares" argument raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland)?

Mr. Fletcher: If I may continue what I was saying before I come to that point, the explanatory memorandum goes on:
Social and political activities cannot be the ground for a charge of unbecoming conduct; but if they lead to neglect of duty they may enter into a complaint under that head.
Where I think there is an innovation in this Measure—and I am not really concerned at the moment to express an opinion whether I agree with it, because I think it is primarily a matter for the Church authorities themselves—is that I think we have to remember that the bishops of the Church of England, or at any rate a great many of them, are by law established as Members of another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not all of them."] No not all; I said a great many—two Archbishops, three senior bishops, Winchester, Durham, London, and 26 other bishops in order of seniority.
They are Members of another place, and I think it is important to remember, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that those Members of another place have not only a right but a duty to express their opinion on all social and political matters. They have just as much a right and duty as Members of this House have to express, whenever they think appropriate, their opinions by speech and vote on all controversial matters coming before another place. Until comparatively recently, opinions expressed on social matters by the bench of bishops have been regarded as of value to the community.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member is going a little too far. It has always been the practice for the bishops to be independent and to express ecclesiastical views, their views as bishops. It has never been the practice for bishops to be members of a political party.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member completely misunderstands the position. For generations it has been the right and duty

of the bishops in another place to express their opinions on controversial matters. I do not want to enter into a controversy, but if I had to do so in answer to the hon. Member, I would say that the criticism that has been made, with considerable validity in the past, is that the bench of bishops have tended to exercise their vote in one political direction rather than in another. That may or may not be a coincidence, but I hope that bishops of the Church of England, like other impartial people, will move with the times and will reflect the general views of an advancing civilisation.
But the point is that surely it ought not to be thought, because of any language used in this Measure, that attention given by the bishops to social and political problems is necessarily any dereliction of any other part of their duties, and I hope that nothing that is said in this Measure will ever be so construed.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Maldon, speaking for myself and also for the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who also is a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and judging from the words of the report read by the hon. Member for Maldon, I think it is a fair criticism of the description in this memorandum of the Measure dealing with incumbents. But be it granted that there is some difference in the language used in this Measure from that used in the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, I would still submit to the House that in itself and so far as it goes, this Measure is a very desirable clarification and improvement in the law as it stands; and because it has received the practically unanimous support of the Church Assembly, it is one which this House should endorse.

Mr. Driberg: In view of his concession to me, for which I am grateful, I would ask the hon. Member if he does not agree that the position is that an incumbent can still be proceeded against for unbecoming conduct in respect of political activities, but a bishop cannot?

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I thought it strange that certain hon. Members opposite should appear anxious to oppose a Measure which disciplines the bishops merely on the ground that it did not go far enough. I should have


thought they would have been satisfied that at any rate a beginning has been made.

Mr. Bing: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Member when he is just beginning, but will he deal with the point about which we on this side are most anxious to know? Would he agree with me that a bishop who used his office to bring political pressure on one of his incumbents should be disciplined?

Mr. Assheton: I do not propose to deal with that point further than to say that this is a Measure for the disciplining of bishops and if hon. Members do not think it goes far enough, they should be glad to see that some Measure has been brought forward for that purpose. As we cannot amend this Measure, we are not in a position to adopt the suggestion put before the House by the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing).
I sympathise with those hon. Members on this side who have made certain complaints about the drafting of the Measure. But let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). As a member, of the Ecclesiastical Committee, like the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), I was naturally anxious when I found some criticism levelled against the report of our Committee, a Committee which, as the House knows, contains members of both another place and of this House. It is a Committee which does its best to go into these matters carefully, and to understand them.
The comment of the hon. Member for Maldon was not really on the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, but on the report which the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly rendered to the Ecclesiastical Committee. I have been perusing that report since the hon. Member's speech, and have tried to make up my mind why, if at all, an error was made. If there is an error, I think it is a slight one, due perhaps to the attempt on the part of the draftsman of this report to compress some of the statements he was making. The words complained of by the hon. Member for Maldon are these:
A Bishops (Retirement) Measure also dealing with both disability and discipline was passed at the same time but was not laid before Parliament because the Ecclesiastical Committee were of opinion that 'social and

political opinions and activities' which in the Measures concerning Incumbents and Dignitaries were excluded as grounds for accusations of misconduct were not so excluded in the Bishops Measure.
The fact is that in the case of the Incumbents' (Discipline) Measure, 1947, that is not quite accurate, but in the case of the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, 1949, it is so. In the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, the words:
Social or political opinions or activities
are referred to. In compressing into one sentence the statements of two different Measures, a slight error has perhaps been made by the draftsman of the report of the Legislative Committee.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry to harp on this point, but I do not think it is quite so trivial. After all, the hon. Baronet commended this Measure to the House, by suggesting that it gave parity between incumbents and bishops.

Mr. Assheton: There is not exact parity between bishops and deans, but there is between bishops and incumbents, as far as I can see.

Mr. Bing: No.

Mr. Assheton: In the Incumbents Measure there is reference in Section 2, subsection (ii), to the social or political opinions of incumbents. There again, in the appropriate Section in this Measure, there is reference in Section 5 (1, c) to the social or political opinions of a bishop. Looking at the Church Dignitaries Measure, one finds in Section 4 (1, b) reference to the social or political opinions or activities of a dignitary. I agree that there is not exact parity. Therefore, I dissociate myself from the argument that we are having fair shares. But that is not the kind of argument with which I wish to be associated. Therefore, it does not disturb me to be dissociated from it in this particular case.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Maldon that the fact that there may possibly have been some misunderstanding in the report of the Legislative Committee does not invalidate the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is itself a Parliamentary Committee and has to report to this House. I do not think that if the Ecclesiastical Committee had considered that point, it would have made any different report. I think that hon.


Members opposite who are on this Committee will agree with me over that. I think that the Measure should commend itself to the House in spite of the difficulties of drafting which have been referred to by hon. Members behind me, and I hope very much that the hon. Member for Maldon and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will remember that Parliament has given to the Church Assembly the right to legislate, subject to our final approval.
Parliament has delegated these powers to the Church Assembly. Frequently, what the Church Assembly has done has not wholly commended itself to this House, but the understanding is that we have given the Church of England a certain amount of freedom. They have brought forward this Measure. It does not go far enough to suit all hon. Members of this House, but it is considered by most hon. Members to be an advance. There may be some drafting difficulties in it, but on the whole I suggest that the House would be wise to do what we do as often as we can, and that is to accept a Measure which the Church Assembly has sent to us, and let it go forward, if possible, without a Division.

11.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I rise only to make it quite clear, as I have had the question put to me, that, of course, the Government have no responsibility at all for this Measure. Any hon. Member is entitled to vote in any way he pleases and should there be a Division, it may even be that Members of the Government will go into different Lobbies, for there is no political issue involved here.
Apart from that, may I say that, speaking as a Nonconformist, I want to express my sympathy with the Church of England that it should have to have its Measures considered by this House, on matters concerning its internal organisation and discipline. There are many Nonconformists in this House. In fact, I rather suspect that the number of Conformists, if we had a very strict investigation, might be found to be surprisingly small, but there are a number of Nonconformists here and we realise it is a great disadvantage to any Church that it should have to have this kind of Measure

debated in an assembly in which men of many faiths, and of none, participate.
If it is of any interest to anyone, I have been so impressed by the criticisms made by hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the drafting and efficiency of this Measure that, should there be a Division. I should not find myself able to vote for the Measure.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."
If I may give my reasons very shortly, they are these. I am all for fair shares in this matter, and I observe that on the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure the discussion began at 9.59 p.m., and that shortly before 11.22 p.m. a similar Motion was moved upon the grounds that many hon. Members still wanted to speak, the hour was late, and that outside the weather was inclement. All these conditions prevail today. Mr. Speaker accepted that Motion and, with respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope you will accept mine. I have a more substantial reason—that having listened to this debate, I cannot avoid the conclusion that some of the opposition to this Measure has been put forward on such varied grounds that possibly if there were opportunity for further consideration, the opposition might be less definite next time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Mr. Blackburn: May I speak, Sir?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may speak on that Motion.

Mr. Blackburn: I only wish to offer the observation that it would be certainly completely wrong for a vote to be taken now unless there has been a full opportunity to debate this matter. I go further and say that there are certain aspects, and far the gravest aspects of this matter, which have not been mentioned in any speech this evening and with which I shall venture to deal if I am called on the major issue.
If you accept the Motion, Sir, I defer to your Ruling. In any event there should be a full opportunity to discuss this matter. Once this matter had been determined by an affirmative vote this evening, there would be no Committee stage; we can only vote on it on the Motion.

Mr. Keeling: I support the Motion that the debate be adjourned in order to give the hon. baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) a chance to have another look at the Measure and see whether he does not agree with the Leader of the House that it is really extremely badly drafted. If he came to the same conclusion, he could withdraw his Motion and send the Measure back.

Mr. Driberg: May I support the Motion on the same grounds and also in the hope that my hon. Friend may do what his seconder tonight said that it would be impossible for him to do—take consultation with his colleagues, the supporters of this Measure, his fellow Church Commissioners and the Church Assembly, and find out if it is possible to accede in any way to our requests and meet the criticisms which have been made from this side as well as the other side of the House.

Mr. Reader Harris: May I say that I oppose the adjournment of the debate because the House of Commons has very few occasions on which it can debate and examine these matters.

Sir R. Acland: I have little to say except that I hope the House will come to a decision tonight, and I believe that in those circumstances I may be able to say something which would not be unacceptable to my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in relation to drafting points. Although I am sure that the criticism made will be taken notice of by those who draft these Measures, I could not hold out any expectation that either now or at a later time, one would be able to suggest that the whole of the Measure should go back to the beginning of the whole Church Assembly procedure and come up in an entirely different form.

Mr. Angus Maude: I oppose the Motion for the adjournment of the debate on one ground only, that certain things have been said in this debate which went rather wide of the subject under discussion, and certain impressions may have been left which are misleading and which I think should be answered tonight. Certain impressions left in particular by the hon and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) would, I think, do great damage if allowed to simmer uncorrected. Therefore, I hope we shall be able to discuss the matter further.

Mr. Wyatt: I also oppose the Motion, because if the debate tonight were adjourned, we would have to come back and have the same discussion all over again a few nights later. We might as well come to a decision tonight.

Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 128.

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[11.52 p.m.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Deer, G.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Balfour, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bartley, P.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Beswick, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Bing, G. H. C.
Field, Capt. W J.
Keeling, E H.


Black, C. W.
Finch, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Blenkinsop, A.

Lang, Rev. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M.
Lee, F. (Newton)


Boardman, H
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lindgren, G. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gibson, C. W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norten)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gitzean, A.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacColl, J. E


Carmichael, James
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, Anthony W J. (Rossendale)
McInnes, J


Clunie, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Collindridge, F.
Hall, J (Gateshead, W.)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)
Manuel, A. C


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J


Crossman, R. H. S
Harrison, J.
Mellor, Sir J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro)
Holman, P.
Mitchison. G. R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)
Moeran, E. W.


Davies, S. O, (Merthyr)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Moody, A. S.


de Chair, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.




Morley, R.
Robens, A.
Timmons, J


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wallace, H. W


Mullay, F. W
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Nally, W.
Ropner, Col. L
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Neal, H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
West, D. G.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Scott, Donald
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Parker, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wigg, George


Poole, Cecil
Simmons, C. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Popplewell, E.
Slater, J.
Williams, W T (Hammersmith, S.)


Porter, G.
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Proctor, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Winterbottom, R E (Brightside)


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Sylvester, G. O.



Rankin, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Mrs. D.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Mr. Donnelly and


Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W)
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas.


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Aitken, W. T.
Harden, J. R. E.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pearson, A.


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Hargreaves, A.
Powell, J. Enoch


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
Raikes, H. V.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Hay, John
Redmayne, M.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hayman, F. H.
Remnant, Hon. P


Awbery, S. S.
Heath, E. R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Blackburn, A. R
Hollis, M. C.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Sparks, J. A


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Spens, Sir P (Kensington, S.)


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)


Broughton, Dr A. D. D
Jenkins, R, H
Stoddart-Scott, Col M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Jennings, R.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Butcher, H. W
Keenan, W.
Studhofine, H. G.


Coldrick, W
Kenyon, C.
Summers, G. S.


Collick, P.
Kinley, J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Lambert, Hon. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cook, T. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Peckham)
Langford-Holt, J.
Thompson, K. P (Walton)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. O E.
Llewellyn, D.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Crouch, R. F
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S. W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Deedes, W. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Wilkes, L.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Donner, P. W.
McKibbin, A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Dye, S.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Fort, R.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wood, Hon. R.


Foster, J. G.
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Nabarro, G.



Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Nicholls, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Nicholson and


Grimston, Hon. J (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.
Mr. Eric Fletcher.


Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

TUBERCULOSIS NURSES (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES SCHEME)

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 26th February 1951, entitled the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No. 305), a copy of which was laid

before this House on 26th February, be annulled.
This Order adds tuberculosis, in respect of certain categories, as the 38th prescribed disease under the Industrial Injuries Act, and it raises such very grave issues that I thought it right, with some of my hon. Friends, to bring it before the House for discussion tonight.
I propose, first, to study the evidence and to query whether the conditions of the Industrial Injuries Act have been fulfilled—in other words, whether the Minister on the evidence available to her can


make these Regulations at all. My second point is to examine the repercussions of these Regulations, which are very serious indeed, particularly as they will affect nursing recruitment, the claims of other workers to have tuberculosis prescribed as a risk in their cases, the position in regard to other communicable diseases, and the relationship between industrial injuries and the National Insurance Act. Finally, I want to suggest to the Minister a better way of setting about this problem, which is of so great concern to so many of us.
First, as to the Minister's powers. These are contained in Section 55 (2) of the Act. Two conditions have to be fulfilled before the Minister can prescribe a disease as an industrial disease, with all the consequences that flow from that. The first is that the Minister must be satisfied that the disease ought to be treated as a risk of occupation, that it ought to be treated as a particular risk of the professions of nurses, health workers, research and laboratory students, and the others mentioned in this Statutory Instrument; and the second is that this disease can be either established, or presumed with reasonable certainty, to be due to the employment.
Those are the conditions on which only there is any right to make these Regulations. It follows that before they can be made, the Minister must be satisfied on the evidence that there is added risk to those persons by reason of their employment. If we approve these Regulations, it will go out from this House that nurses in sanatoria and the various health workers have an additional chance of contracting tuberculosis by reason of their employment. That is the central dilemma which I want to pose at the beginning of my remarks.
The evidence on which we are asked to make so grave a decision is contained in the recommendations of the Advisory Council, which have presumably been accepted by the Minister. It says that there are very few statistics available. What statistics there are, notably those contained in the report on the Prophit tuberculosis survey, indicate that there was a higher incidence of tuberculosis in nurses, particularly in general hospitals. This survey is a lengthy document, from which I intend to read only two brief extracts. The first is from the

preface by Lord Moran. After giving certain figures, he reaches this conclusion, and it is on this evidence that the Regulations are based:
These figures suggest not only that young women are more likely to develop tuberculosis than young men in similar surroundings but that the risk of developing tuberculosis is more or less in proportion to the degree of exposure to tuberculous infection.
Those who have studied this problem know that young women are more liable. It is not surprising that a group of young nurses should be found to have a higher incidence of morbidity, although not mortality, as the Survey points out. The Survey points out later that there is a considerable divergence of medical evidence on whether there is or is not a greater incidence of tuberculosis in hospitals. Having given the figures and comparing the figures between nurses in the various control groups, the Survey reaches this conclusion:
The difference is just below the level of significance according to the severe statistical tests applied.
It goes on to point out:
There is no significant difference between nurses in Group B hospitals where full care is taken and the ordinary treatment in civilian life.
The Advisory Council, and, following that, the Minister, have come down on the side that there is an added risk for this class of people. I should like to quote what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said on 23rd November:
In the 15 institutions in my region there is a staff of 424 full-time and 66 part-time male and female staff and last year there was not a single case of infection among the nursing staff in those hospitals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 648.]
Apart from the evidence contained in the Survey, to which I have referred, the Minister when she indicated the presentation of these Regulations, said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh), who asked whether she agreed that the figures and facts showed that fewer nurses have contracted tuberculosis in the sanatoria than in practically any other way, answered that the right hon. Lady was absolutely correct.
The Parliamentary Secretary has to tell us on which of these horns of dilemma he chooses to impale himself. Either he must say that there is an added risk in con-


trading this disease for this class, in which case the Regulations are legal, or he must uphold the statement of his Minister and agree with many other official and unofficial statements that there is no added risk, in which case the Regulations are illegal. Every conclusion of the Advisory Council is tentative: they say that "the evidence suggests," or "on balance we are inclined to think." Having decided on evidence which does not exist, in my submission, that there is an added risk they add that
Although there appears to be an almost complete absence of statistical evidence, we formed the opinion that the special exposure to risk extends to other groups of health workers.
On the strength of that statement that although there is no evidence they form that opinion, these Regulations are extended to other groups of health workers. A very famous Parliamentarian, commenting on the speech of an even more famous Parliamentarian recently, said that it contained no concrete noun. It is fair to say about this Report which I have read many times with the greatest care that it contains no concrete proposal whatever. I suggest that we must have more satisfactory evidence than this before we take such a step as is contemplated tonight.
On the second point I only want to comment briefly because I think possibly some of my hon. Friends would like to take this matter up, and that is on the question of establishing or presuming the risk of infection. The Report says—and I entirely agree—that it is, in general, impossible to establish with certainty that the infection has been caused by the employment. That is so, beyond doubt. They go on to the question whether it may be presumed with reasonable certainty, and they come to the conclusion:
We feel that adjudication on claims to benefit would be most difficult unless claimants were given the help of a presumption when claiming that they had contracted tuberculosis because of the nature of their employment.
I have no doubt that if we are to have such Regulations, then they are right in saying that claimants must be given such a presumption, because otherwise I do not doubt that none of these people would qualify for benefit in the way that the Advisory Council suggests.
In all this there is no evidence at all. There is a great deal of surmise, and I

am afraid it is impossible to escape the conclusion that this Council has made its arguments fit its recommendations rather than its recommendations fit its arguments. Unless there is a better way—and I promise in a few moments to try to suggest one—I do not think the House can allow the Regulations that are at present under discussion.
I come to my next point on the repercussions of these Regulations, and this is by far the most serious matter. These repercussions are, beyond doubt, very grave indeed. They are extremely wide, for this reason, that for the first time we are suggesting prescribing a disease, not only a disease which is widespread but a disease whose risk is or has so far been understood to be common to the entire population.
First, I want to discuss the question of the effect of this on nursing recruitment. One of the pleasantest features of the House of Commons as I have found since I became a Member of it has been the very great interest that Members in all quarters have shown in tuberculosis and in this question of nursing recruitment. There is no possibility of divergence in what I am saying now. We all recognise that this is the kernel and the key of the problem of tuberculosis. We recognise, too, that there has been in the past, and is still, a tremendous wastage—65 per cent. according to the Working Party—in regard to nurses entering sanatoria. What effect will an announcement—it amounts to that—that there is an added risk of tuberculosis to nurses, have on nursing recruitment?

Mr. George Thomas: Does the hon. Member think the nurses do not know about that?

Mr. MacLeod: Of course; but let me put this point, because I am very anxious to get a summary of views on this point. The two bodies concerned—the Advisory Council and the Dale Committee on Industrial Health Services—both say that the evidence before them tips, as all this evidence is tipping, on a balance. Some people say it will have a good effect and that it will give nurses a feeling of added security. Some people say it will make it less attractive for mothers to persuade their daughters to go into such a service. I can express only a personal opinion. Whether we pay a nurse 45s. or 26s.,


obviously that is no compensation whatever for her if she contracts this dreadful disease. No compensation this House can suggest in terms of money can compensate a young woman for that. That is beyond doubt. So I express as my opinion—and this is a matter of opinion and not of proof—that on balance, and I agree the arguments are close, this will have an uncertain effect on nursing recruitment.
I turn to my second point, which is the effect of this new departure on other groups of workers who may claim, with what seems to them just as much justice, that tuberculosis is a risk of their employment. In 1939 there was a report on tuberculosis in Wales and Monmouthshire with which hon. Members may be familiar. That report stated the incidence of tuberculosis in various occupations and came to the conclusion that the three occupations which were most susceptible to infection were mining, quarrying and seafaring. Nurses were examined, but nursing was not included in the three occupations most seriously affected.
I suggest that we are opening a door to many groups who will claim that tuberculosis should be prescribed for them as a risk of their occupation. I shall come in a moment to the question of whether that is right or wrong. There are many examples. The steel industry of Sheffield is one. Another, of my own personal knowledge, occurs in the Outer Hebrides, where the incidence of tuberculosis is perhaps more severe than anywhere else in Britain. There is no doubt that the risk of employment of the weavers, weaving tweed in their own cottages, is far higher than that of any of the people for whom we are legislating tonight.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: I was going to point out that of the three occupations the hon. Member has mentioned, two have already been prescribed.

Mr. MacLeod: I realise that, but I am saying, as the Committee said, that there are many groups of persons for whom tuberculosis might be fairly claimed to be an additional risk of their employment.
My third point is the most important of all. We are prescribing tuberculosis because we consider it to be a communicable disease: that is the basis of the Regulations. All other communicable

diseases immediately come into consideration. Once this door is opened, I am certain that every communicable disease to which workers are subject, in particular the infectious diseases, to which nurses in hospitals have an additional risk, must be prescribed by the Minister, as the direct result of the action we are taking tonight in prescribing for the first time a disease which is on the whole common to everyone.
Before the Dale Committee on Industrial Diseases, the T.U.C. offered evidence that in their opinion every disease which could be shown to be contracted by virtue of employment should be prescribed, and that view was supported independently by the Royal College of Physicians. I am sympathetic to that point of view. We are going a long way towards that point of view tonight, but I would add that it is the end of the industrial injuries conception as we have known it ever since 1897. That may be good or bad. On balance, I think it good, but it is essential that the House should be clear on what the Regulations which I am moving to annul seek to do.
The Committee on which this is based has said that in the view of the public the distinction between National Insurance and Industrial Injuries will, as a result of this prescription, inevitably become blurred. I have no doubt that that is true. I believe that just as Workmen's Compensation was out-dated by the 1911 Insurance Act, but took a long time to die, so the conception of Industrial Injuries in time is bound to be out-dated by the scheme of 1946.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: The hon. Member's remarks seem to be aimed at the conclusion that industrial disease, as such, for compensation purposes is a wrong classification, and that because of what he terms the blurring of the line between industrial accidents and industrial diseases, there ought not to be any separate compensation for industrial injuries.

Mr. MacLeod: That is the logical conclusion of the Trades Union Congress arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the interpretation which I put on the evidence of the T.U.C.

Dr. Morgan: No.

Mr. MacLeod: In my view, and I am putting it no higher than this, once this


conception is made, once the risk to the population is admitted, one must admit mumps and chicken pox and all the other communicable diseases and so, in time, every disease contracted by virtue of employment must be admitted to be a prescribed disease, and there will be no industrial injuries.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting very far from the Regulations. To quote from the Regulations, they deal with
tuberculosis in the case of nurses and certain other persons insurably employed in occupations involving close and frequent contact with a source or sources of tuberculous infection.
It must be people who are in close contact with tuberculosis, and the Regulations do not deal with general industrial diseases.

Dr. Morgan: This is my plea. As medical officer to the T.U.C. I had a great deal to do with collecting the evidence in regard to this matter. The hon. Gentleman starts off with an absolutely wrong idea of the whole basis of these Regulations. As Mr. Speaker has just mentioned, any of these diseases must be related to the man's employment.

Mr. MacLeod: No. I assure the hon. Member that I had not misinterpreted the point in his interpretation of the evidence given to the Dale Committee, which I have here in my hand. It may be that this is a matter of opinion. It may be that hon. Members disagree with me. It is true, as Mr. Speaker has said, that I have been led into routes further away from the Regulations than I intended.
Let me suggest the ways in which I think a better method of setting about this problem could be found. Whether my conclusions are accepted by everyone or not, it will be agreed that this is a matter which must be discussed, and on which the repercussions are serious indeed. I suggest that in preference to passing, or allowing, these Regulations to go forward, the Minister should use her powers under Section 73 (1) of the Act to promote research into the causes and incidence of the diseases for which this method might be prescribed.

Mr. Speaker: These things are outside the Regulations. I think that alternative methods are really outside the scope of this Debate.

Mr. MacLeod: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will leave my suggestions of a better method cut slightly in mid-air.
Let me say finally that I do not think that this is the right way. I do not think that we have sufficient evidence before us to allow such Regulations to go forward. I consider the repercussions are too grave and I consider the ripples from these Regulations will go too far for the conception of industrial injuries to be maintained. I suggest that they are based on inadequate evidence, that they are of doubtful legality, and that they will have the most serious repercussions. Although I have not the slightest intention of inviting the House to divide on this matter, because it is obviously one which should not be taken to a Division, I think it is right to bring it before the House and, I submit, the case against these Regulations is fully made.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to emphasise two of the main grounds he has given for his Motion, namely, the inadequacy of the statistical basis upon which these Regulations purport to rest and, secondly, the repercussions which their making will have upon tuberculosis nursing and, through that, upon the whole treatment of tuberculosis. First, as regards the statistical basis. This is an absolutely vital point, because unless the statistical evidence is perfectly clear and satisfactory that nurses in sanatoria are, in fact, definitely more liable to tuberculosis, than the rest of the population by reason of that employment, then these Regulations are undoubtedly ultra vires.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance replies, he will give us—I think it will be for the first time—the statistical evidence for saying that there is, in fact, a higher incidence amongst nurses in sanatoria due to their employment. Both points are essential to the argument. Certainly, the Advisory Council did not, in so many words, even state that, because as I read their Report they confounded the position of nurses in sanatoria with the risks to the nursing profession in general. They said:


There is a higher incidence of tuberculosis in nurses, particularly those in general hospitals.
They said again, and I am quoting from another point in paragraph (10) of then-Report—
The incidence of tuberculosis is higher amongst nurses.
That is not satisfactory, even if that statement rests upon statistical evidence, which we have not had yet.

Mr. Hargreaves: The point surely is that of nurses in general hospitals nursing tuberculosis patients without the safeguards which there are in sanatoria.

Mr. Powell: I see the hon. Member's point. I have long grasped it and I am coming to that in the second part of my remarks, in which I propose to demonstrate that these Regulations do not cover nurses in general hospitals. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do."] I leave that for the moment. Let us take the subject in two parts: nurses in sanatoria and nurses in general hospitals. So far as nurses in sanatoria are concerned, it is not even claimed by the Advisory Council that they are subject to higher risks by virtue of their employment. If we look at the conditions under which they work, we are led on a priori grounds to the conclusion that it is most unlikely that nurses in tuberculosis sanatoria would compare unfavourably from tubercular infection with comparable sections of the population not so employed.
Let me remind the House of some of the factors which are to their advantage. In the first place, they not only have regular X-ray examinations, but the X-ray plates which result are read by people who are reading X-ray plates all day long for no purpose whatsoever but the detection of tuberculosis. That is a very much more searching and safeguarding sieve through which to pass than ordinary mass radiography or X-ray examination. In the second place, as is, I think, well known, that nurses employed in tuberculosis sanatoria are Mantoux tested; and if that does produce a negative result—the employment of Mantoux negatives in tuberculosis sanatoria is avoided, I know, as far as possible, though there are many such employed—if that does produce a negative result, then B.C.G. is available. Finally, the nurse in a tuberculosis sanatorium is living, as compared with her sisters in general hospitals, in precisely

those conditions selected by the medical profession as preventive of tuberculosis—as unfavourable to the development of tuberculosis—and she lives under a strict regimen designed to counteract the dangers of infection.
So I submit that not only has the statistical evidence in regard to sanatoria nurses not been produced, but the probabilities are weighted against their being specially exposed to this infection by reason of their employment. Unless it is quite certain, unless this House can convince itself, that there is such a higher risk to sanatoria nurses, we ought to hesitate, and hesitate long, before we pin upon the profession of tuberculosis nursing in sanatoria this danger flag of an industrial disease recognised for the purposes of the Act.
The superintendent of a tuberculosis sanatorium near my constituency writes to me:
Nurses are apt to regard extra pay as danger money.
They would quite certainly regard the coming into force of these Regulations as a danger signal. Though that may not affect—and this is in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)—nurses already in the profession—I am sure it would not—it would certainly affect both those contemplating entry into it, and what is more important still, relatives and others likely to sway their minds.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the nursing profession has been asking for this sort of Regulations for years?

Mr. Powell: Well, if that is so, we are entitled on this matter to be guided, as the Minister must be, by the Report of the Advisory Council, which, I am sure, is anything but clear on the subject, and by the legal obligations laid upon the Minister.

Mr. Fernyhough: Moral obligations.

Mr. Powell: I am not sure that the considerations I am advancing are not influenced by moral factors and moral considerations.
Now I want to pass from nurses in sanatoria to the nurses in general hospitals. I agree immediately that the nurses in general hospitals are under greater


danger of infection certainly than their sisters in the sanatoria, and almost certainly than the public at large. The same superintendent of a tuberculosis sanatorium whose letter I quoted just now states that the nurses in those sanatoria
are almost certainly in less danger than nurses working in general hospitals,
and a tuberculosis officer of long experience writes to me:
Figures are available to show that there is less likelihood of nurses being infected with tuberculosis in sanatoria than in general hospital nursing.
As an illustration of the reasons for that, I may mention that quite recently in a hospital not far from where I live, a patient was in a general hospital for 14 days——

Mrs. Middleton: On a point of order. Are we in order in discussing in this debate the application of these Regulations to nurses either in tuberculosis sanatoria or in general hospitals, in view of the fact that both classes of nurses are covered by the Regulations?

Mr. Powell: If both classes are covered by the Regulations, I should have thought that we were in order in discussing the application of the Regulations to both classes.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently the Regulations do affect occupations involving close and frequent contact with sources of tuberculous infection. How far that goes in general hospitals, I am not clear.

Mr. Powell: I was about to address myself, Mr. Speaker, to exactly that point which I think is of great importance since, if I am right in thinking that the Regulations do not cover nurses in general hospitals—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] Well, they may or may not.

Mrs. Middleton: My point of order was that a distinction was being drawn on the other side of the House to the effect that the Regulations do not apply to nurses in general hospitals, but under the terms of the Regulations obviously nurses in general hospitals are included.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady, I submit, is not so much raising a point of order as discussing in advance—and I am sure we shall be grateful to her for her views on it—the point I was about to put

before the House relating to the actual wording of the Regulations. In coming to the question of nurses in general hospitals and their need for being covered, if we are to deal with the matter at all in this way, I was pointing out the urgency and importance of this by referring to a particular case of danger of tuberculosis to a nurse in a general hospital.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I think it was clear to the whole House that when the hon. Member started to develop his argument in relation to the incidence of this complaint in general hospitals, he did so on the argument that the Regulations did not apply to general hospitals. Now it has been made clear that they do apply to general hospitals, what is the reason for his continuing the distinction he sought to draw?

Mr. Speaker: These things are rather technical and if points of order are to come up one after the other, it is very hard at this time of the morning to understand the points. I am not clear myself, having heard the argument, whether or not the Regulations apply to general hospitals.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: How on earth can I possibly answer all these points of order. I want to hear the argument and then perhaps I shall know to what the point of order relates.

Mr. Powell: I was about to address an inquiry to the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench as to whether the Regulations do in fact cover nurses in general hospitals and to give my reasons for being doubtful on the subject.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps to shorten the proceedings the Minister could tell us whether they do or not. I should like to know for my own information. He knows the Regulations and could presumably tell us. I have often asked a Minister to clarify my mind on a matter of this kind because I do not know and would like to know.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Taylor): I think that if the Regulations are carefully read, there need not be any doubt in the mind of the hon. Member at all. May I draw his


attention to the nature of occupation which is to be scheduled?
Any occupation involving close and frequent contact with a source or sources of tuberculous infection by reason of employment.
I submit that that does include nurses in general hospitals.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, suggested by yourself, Mr. Speaker. It does enable me to put my matter of doubt much more readily than I would otherwise have been able to do. The example I was about to give to the House when I was interrupted does precisely bear upon this wording and its applicability. I was referring to a case in a general hospital where a patient had been there for 14 days and had been diagnosed as suffering from influenzal pneumonia. After that period it was discovered, to use the words of the doctor who told me about it, that it was a case of "roaring tuberculosis". Let us consider the position of the nurses tending that patient. It is perfectly true that they were in close contact with a source of tuberculous infection, but I am exceedingly doubtful whether by reason of their employment in a general hospital, where tuberculosis cases are not normal——

Mrs. Braddock: But they are.

Mr. Powell: —it could be said that they are in close and frequent contact with a source of tuberculous infection. It may well be said, like certain other communicable diseases to which nurses are subject, that the Minister might manage under industrial injuries to cover the case by saying the infection was an accident; but I am doubtful whether the nature of employment "involves" for the purpose of this schedule
close and frequent contact with a source or sources of tuberculous infection.
I hope that the Minister will, upon reflection, see that this point has more substance than he might at first have thought.
I conclude by emphasising the grave responsibility which rests on us now in adopting Regulations, or taking any measure, which might react on the recruitment of nurses for the treatment of tuberculosis, and particularly for tuberculosis sanatoria. At any rate, in the area from which I come, which is one

of the least happy areas of the country from the point of view of this disease, the waiting lists, having been checked by the opening of general wards, are now rising again. As is common knowledge, and as my hon. Friend stated, the nursing factor is the key factor. I am desperately concerned that the reaction of these Regulations may be against recruiting to sanatoria, and that that reaction may be based on a false statistical basis. It is on those grounds that I support the Motion.

12.43 a.m.

Dr. Morgan: I hope that this discussion will not be continued for very much longer, for I can assure hon. Members that the Trades Union Congress have been concerned with this matter for years. We have gone through it with a fine comb, and we are perfectly satisfied that at present these Regulations go as far as it is legitimately possible to go in protecting the interests of workers exposed to tuberculous infection. If the contents of the Regulations are read thoroughly, it will be seen that the provisions relate not only to nurses but to other workers in hospitals who come in contact with tuberculous infection. I assure the House, speaking with some knowledge of the subject, that the unions have gone into this thoroughly. I ask the House to accept the Regulations which are based on long experience gained throughout the country.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Alport: I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House approach the problem of tuberculosis with a sincere wish to find the best way not only of coping with the disease but also of providing any means possible of preventing it in future. We welcome the reduction in the figures recently reported, and we hope that in due course the speed of that reduction will parallel the speed of the reduction in the incidence of tuberculosis which took place between the years 1931 and 1935.
I should like to ask the Minister to qualify the Schedule to this Statutory Instrument, which has caused me and other hon. Members on this side some confusion in regard to its interpretation. Will he define as exactly as possible what is meant by the word "occupation"? We know that there is a considerable waiting list for sanatoria; the figure is


something like 13,800 for England, Scotland and Wales. That means that those patients have to be looked after by the members of their families. Many of us who have contact with these cases know how very distressing the situation is for those families. The mother, with a number of children perhaps, has to look after a husband who is in a highly contagious state. Is that "occupation" in the sense of the Schedule?
Would it be possible for the husband to employ his wife—as would be possible for Income Tax purposes—as an attendant on him, and by paying the necessary contributions entitle her—should she contract the disease—to some sort of compensation? I would remind hon. Members opposite that it is the lower income groups who are mostly affected by this, because while the better-to-do can use the facilities available in private sanatoria, those who are less well off have to keep their relations at home unless they can get them into public institutions. It is therefore important that we should see that these cases, where the need is perhaps more important from a priority point of view than that of nurses in sanatoria, are looked after by this Schedule.

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Member talks about nurses in sanatoria and so on, I think he is going outside the Regulations. That is my impression.

Mr. Alport: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but what I am asking is an interpretation of the Schedule and of the term "occupation." I have tried to illustrate my point by showing how a person can be occupied in close and frequent contact with sources of infection by reason of employment and although not coming within the definition of nurses can be carrying out the functions of a nurse.

Mr. Speaker: "Employed" does not mean "occupation."

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is no reference in the Schedule to hospitals sanatoria or other establishments. Therefore, I submit that it is in order to discuss the case of a wife, daughter or servant in a private house. The Schedule is applicable to any place where a sick person may be.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that.

Mr. Alport: Perhaps I might refer the Minister to paragraph (b) and ask him to define the meaning of
in attendance upon a person or persons suffering from tuberculosis, where the need for such attendance arises by reason of physical or mental infirmity;
It would seem that that definitely includes a wife or daughter who would be compelled under existing circumstances to be in constant contact and therefore to have an occupation in the sense of being in frequent contact with the source.
I remember a case not long ago when three medical students at one of the great London hospitals contracted the disease as a result of their contacts with tuberculous cases in the wards. Will those students be included in the definition of the Schedule? I join with hon. Members on this side in asking whether or not this compensation will apply to nurses in general hospitals and particularly in hospitals concerned with the treatment of mentally deficient cases. As hon. Members will know, mentally deficient patients are more liable to tuberculous infection than any other members of the community. Therefore, the staff are more liable to be in contact with infection than the staffs of general hospitals. Are those hospitals also included?
We are very anxious to ensure that this disease, which we regard as one of the priorities in the Health Service, shall have all the attention possible to prevent and to cure it. We sympathise and support very sincerely every measure introduced to that end. But Members opposite will understand it is only right that any action taken should be properly discussed and considered in cases where, as my hon. Friends have alleged, it is not helping towards an improvement in the very dangerous situation that exists, and may, in fact, be acting in a contrary way.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Might we not now have an answer from the Minister?

12.55 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Taylor): I was anxious that nobody should be prevented from participating in the debate. I am very glad that this important subject has been raised, and although the hour is so late; I am glad that we have had this opportunity of discussing what hon. Members


in all quarters of the House regard as an important topic.
The Regulations which are before the House constitute a landmark in the development of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, and I do not share the gloom or pessimism of hon. Members opposite with respect to the prescription of this disease. I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) for previously intimating to me the main points which he intended to raise.
In view of what has been said by hon. Members opposite, may I say that the Government are by no means apologetic about these Regulations? On the contrary, we are proud to have had the opportunity of introducing them, for, in spite of what has been said by hon. Members opposite, they will be of benefit to nurses and others who come into contact with tuberculous patients. There is one tribute I should like to pay to nurses, and I feel this will be shared by all hon. Members. Nurses are outstanding amongst those who devote themselves unsparingly to the service of the community without regard to self. Although the hour is so late, we are more than happy tonight to be able to do something in return for those of them who have the misfortune to contract this dreaded disease of tuberculosis as a result of the work in which they are engaged.
I hope that I shall show to the House that my right hon. Friend in particular has given very careful consideration to this important matter of prescribing tuberculosis among those engaged in occupations which bring them into close and frequent contact with tuberculous infection. I know that some of my hon. Friends think that we have been too long in taking action, but may I remind them that the issues which are at stake are so important that we felt we had to be absolutely certain that any action we took did not conflict with the principles underlying the Industrial Injuries Act.
I should like to make a brief reference to the history of this matter, and I crave the indulgence of the House at this late hour, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an important topic. The subject of benefits for nurses and other health workers who contract tuberculosis from their employment certainly has something of an interesting history.

I do not think the hon. Member would deny that. Tuberculosis was not one of the diseases scheduled under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. While it is the case, as the hon. Member inferred, that occasionally claims succeeded as claims for injury by accident, there was no compensation in the great majority of cases where a person developed tuberculosis as a result of his of her employment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must confine himself to nurses, or to certain people in attendance upon a person who is affected or comes frequently into contact with affected persons. He cannot go into the whole history of tuberculosis legislation.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Surely the reference by the Parliamentary Secretary does relate to the unfortunate position of nurses under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, in which they were precluded from, receiving compensation.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman's remarks referred to nurses, I am quite happy. I did not follow that.

Mr. Taylor: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. When the Industrial Injuries Bill was before the House five years ago, the Government were pressed to include in the Bill a specific provision that it should apply to nurses who contracted tuberculosis. The actual specification of diseases to be covered by the Act was left by Parliament to be done by Regulations and the Government undertook to give this question careful consideration.
I hope I shall be in order if I refer to the Dale Report. Early in 1947, the present Colonial Secretary, then the Minister of National Insurance, appointed a Departmental Committee to advise him on the principles which should cover the selection of diseases for insurance under the Industrial Injuries Act. I know that in doing this my right hon. Friend had particularly in mind tuberculosis among nurses. This Committee reported in 1948, and among other things recommended that a primary consideration in prescribing a disease under the Act should be whether the disease is "specific to the occupations of the persons concerned, or if it is not so specific, whether the occupations of those persons cause


special exposure to risk of the disease, such risk being inherent in the conditions under which the occupations are carried on."

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I agree. The hon. Gentleman is quoting from paragraph 19 of the Dale Report, which I know well. What I am asking is that some evidence should be produced to show that in fact that is the case. We have not had a word about that.

Mr. Taylor: In reply to the hon. Member's interruption, I would say that according to Section 55 of the Act the only condition that is required for the making of Regulations of this kind is that the Minister should be satisfied that it is a risk of their occupations. I want to say to the House tonight that, on this particular point, upon the prescription of tuberculosis, the Minister is absolutely satisfied that this is the moment when it should be done.
One other point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, West, was whether there was an added risk of infection by the disease among nurses. I think that if he reads the report of the Advisory Council again—he says that he has read it many times, but I submit with respect that he should read it perhaps a little more carefully—he will find there is abundant evidence in that report which in the view of the Minister, shows that the conditions for making these Regulations are satisfied. There is abundant evidence of an added risk among the nurses in the occupations mentioned.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am speaking from memory now, but when I was at the Ministry of Labour during the war, this question came up. The advice we got at that time from the Ministry of Health was that in properly conducted sanatoria, the risk was not greater than the risk in other occupations. I well remember a great authority telling me that he regarded the people who swept out the cinders as being in the most dangerous occupation of all.

Mr. Mellish: If there were only one case of a nurse getting tuberculosis in a tuberculosis sanatorium, or in a general hospital, these Regulations ought to apply. What have we to do? Is it suggested that we should wait until hundreds of thousands drop down dead?

Mr. Taylor: It is the case, I frankly admit, that the incidence of tuberculosis among nurses in sanatoria is remarkably low because of the very high standards set to prevent its spreading; but there is evidence that the incidence is greater in general hospitals than in sanatoria. Even if it were the fact, as my hon. Friend has suggested, that there were only one case, I submit to the House that that would be complete justification for these Regulations.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am not quarrelling with that statement, nor am I quarrelling with what the Parliamentary Secretary says, but I am anxious that it should not go out to the parents of prospective nurses that this is a highly dangerous occupation, when actually it is not.

Mr. Mellish: Is it not obvious that every intelligent person in this country knows that there is a danger of tuberculosis? The urge to enter this job comes from the heart. We have proved, in other debates, that the rate of infection is lower, but again I say even if there were only one case, that would be sufficient ground for these Regulations.

Mr. Taylor: May I make an observation regarding the provision that there shall be close and frequent contact? I think it is sufficiently important for me even at this late hour to make an observation about it. I want to emphasise, in this connection, that we have been extremely careful in deciding who should be covered by these Regulations. I think that was one of the misapprehensions of the hon. Member for Enfield, West. It might have been suggested that tuberculosis should be prescribed in relation to anyone engaged in nursing, or in one of the other occupations listed in the Regulations. But we have not done that. We have covered only those who can show that they have been exposed to close and frequent contact with some source of tuberculous infection because of their employment. The requirement is not just close or frequent, but both close and frequent, contact.
I should like to emphasise that particular point. We are satisfied that this fundamental condition will ensure that only those who are really at some special risk can qualify for benefit under the Regulations-. I was proposing to say one or two words about presumption, but I will miss that point. May I come——

Captain Duncan: Captain Duncan (South Angus) rose——

Mr. Taylor: The hour is getting late and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. May I make an observation about specialist advice and consideration of claims? I want to emphasise this because hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, I am sure, that the Advisory Council placed great emphasis upon this point, and attached great importance to it. We have arranged, with the co-operation of the Health Departments, that in every claim under these new Regulations we shall have the benefit of advice from a specialist in tuberculosis, not only on whether the person claiming benefit actually has tuberculosis, but on whether his or her employment involved close and frequent contact with the disease and whether it was probably due to the nature of the employment.
In addition—and I think this, too, is of some importance—we have arranged that every claim will receive especially careful treatment when it is under consideration. I hope that this will show that the Government are fully alive to the need for administering the provisions of these Regulations very carefully in view of the repercussions which could follow if there were loose treatment of claims.
May I say a word about the occupations covered, and I think this will in many respects cover the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). Nursing is, of course, the main one, but there is a number of others. The list of occupations is drawn for the most part in general terms, but we expect they will cover, for example, ward maids, hospital laundry workers, and tuberculosis visitors, always provided, of course, that the condition of close and frequent contact with tuberculous infection, to which I have referred, is satisfied.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell rose——

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, but I have given way two or three times.

Miss Irene Ward: But we are interested.

Mr. Alport: Mr. Alport rose——

Mr. Taylor: May I now make a brief observation in reply to the comments made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in

respect of the effect on the nursing profession? I am glad to say that the Advisory Council said in their Report that the opinions expressed to them supported the view that prescription of tuberculosis would help rather than hinder recruitment; and we think the sort of men and women who enter upon the vocation of nursing are not likely to be deterred by the knowledge that there may be certain risks attached.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat that I am completely satisfied, and so is my right hon. Friend, that this step which we are taking in making these Regulations prescribing tuberculosis is justified. We are most glad to have this opportunity of taking it. As has been pointed out in every speech by hon. Members opposite, this is a new departure. It is an innovation and it has been made after prolonged and expert examination of the issues involved. I assure the House that we shall watch its operation carefully. I am sure I shall have the backing of the whole House when I say that I regard this as but a very small measure of the debt which we all owe to nurses and hospital staffs for their unselfish and devoted service to the community.

Mr. Alport: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would kindly consider whether he is able to give an answer to the question I put as to whether the relatives, the wife or daughter who are compelled to nurse the tuberculosis patient in the home owing to lack of accommodation, can be brought under the operation of this Schedule by being placed in employment by the patient concerned?

Mr. Taylor: The answer is very simple. To be covered by the Schedule, an occupation must be insurable under the Industrial Injuries Act.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I am afraid I can only describe the reply as profoundly disappointing. I am very distressed that the Parliamentary Secretary, after I had given him full notice, has not studied this matter with anything like sufficient care. We have been asked for evidence on these matters. I can give one example. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that if there was one case these regulations were justified and I said that no money could make up for this; if we paid that one nurse £10,000 it would not compensate her. I was quite horrified


to find the Minister taking the view he did. These orders are unquestionably ultra vires.

Mr. Mellish: What does the hon. Member suggest? That in one case of a nurse in a general hospital who contracts TB we are to ignore it?

Mr. MacLeod: No, there is a far better way of procedure, but when I tried to indicate it I was, unfortunately, ruled out of order. It is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us to read page 3 when it is asked if this affects nurses in general hospitals. Does he think that any hon. Member on this side of the House has come here without knowing every word of that schedule and every word of the Industrial Injuries Act, as I have shown in my replies to the Minister?
We have been told by the Minister, who quoted paragraph 36 of the Report that the view of the Dale Committee was that this thing would help recruitment, but he did not read the sentence immediately before it which says:
Some"—
that is the medical evidence—
felt that prescription would give a little sense of security, others that it may have a frightening effect on potential entrants to nursing or their parents.
If one puts forward a case which is supported by something like half the medical profession it is no good hon. Members opposite shouting "Nonsense."
I say, finally, that I am bitterly disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary should not have treated this most important subject with the consideration that, in my view, it deserves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] On this point of dividing, I told the Minister in a personal letter I wrote to her a fortnight ago, when I raised this point, that I thought it undesirable that this subject should be made a point of Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hold to that view. I do not intend to ask the House to divide, but I do think that the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to study this matter a great deal more than he seems to have done.

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose——

Mr. Speaker: Let us get on now.

Mr. Mellish: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, although I recognise how late

it is, I do consider this matter too serious to ignore. The hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, has been absolutely hypocritical.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a word we may use of hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Mellish: Let hon. Members give me a chance to do so. Under your instruction, Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw. But last week we had seven Prayers, and they were a travesty of democracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It looks as though tonight we are to have a similar performance. However, on this occasion, as opposed to last week's, we are playing around, if I may say so with respect, with a very serious problem.
Today the whole question of the shortage of nurses for tuberculosis nursing is one that is occupying both sides of the House, and it has been treated seriously in the past. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a very important contribution last time this matter was raised. It is desperately urgent that we should get more nurses, and the theme of the Opposition tonight has been, in fact, that this particular Order will deter nursing recruitment. That is utterly nonsensical, and hon. Members opposite should know it. I will prove it.
Everybody knows that the whole problem in nursing is to get those employed in general hospitals, and student nurses, and people of that kind, to go into tuberculosis sanatoria. Fear of infection has in the past deterred people from working in sanatoria. Today we have been able to prove that the fear of infection is less in sanatoria than in the general hospitals. Now if a nurse in course of training, in a general hospital or in a sanatorium—and anyone knows that, from the point of view of the occupation, it does not matter whether the place is a general hospital or a sanatorium—suffers in consequence, she will get under this Order compensation that the nurses have been denied for years.
Every parent knows that if his girl says she is going to work in a tuberculosis sanatorium, to care for the permanent patients, she has got guts and courage. It is a farce to say that this Order will mean they will not be compensated, or that it will mean parents will say, "There


is to be danger of infection in sanatoria," when we know that the danger is less there than, perhaps, in a general hospital. It is a farce, and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to know it.
I think it is a slur on the Parliamentary Secretary to say of him that he has not taken this matter seriously. I happen to know he has not only taken this seriously, but that he has, like all of us on this side of the House, been worried very much about the incidence of tuberculosis in the country.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, in view of what he has said, will he resist in this House all the claims that will be made by other classes of workers, following this Order, when they develop tuberculosis in circumstances which may be assumed to be attributable?

Mr. Mellish: If it can be shown to me that any worker in any industry as a result of his employment is liable to contract tuberculosis, I shall do all I can to help remedy the position.

Question put, and negatived.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask for your guidance. As I have understood since coming to the House, deliberate obstruction is not in order. The point of order I want to ask your Ruling on—and I do it as soon as possible and without delay after the Ruling that you have given today—has arisen from a speech made this evening and reported on the tape at 11.19 p.m. by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) at Banstead, Surrey. He is reported as follows:
11.19—Tory Plan to Exhaust Labour M.Ps.—

Mr. Speaker: This is a speech made outside the House, and as far as we are concerned there is no point of order in anything an hon. Member says outside the House. That can be dealt with in some other way. That is not a matter of Privilege or order.

Mr. Manuel: In my opinion I must ask you if there is a prima facie case to go to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Speaker: Then surely, the hon. Member having raised it at the first opportunity, I must have a little chance to consider it. If he chooses to submit the matter in the morning to me I will give a Ruling on it. I cannot do it now, at this hour in the morning. I think it is only courtesy to let me have a chance to look at it.

Mr. Manuel: I want the opportunity, if you will allow me, to read what has been referred to. It is a short extract.

Mr. Speaker: I really ought to see it first. One does not want to gatecrash into these things—if one, may use those words. I have to consider the matter dispassionately. I have no doubt that my decision Is not always accepted by the House. As I really must have a chance, let the hon. Member submit it to me and I will see whether it is a case to be submitted to the House. That is the usual way. To submit it now, at 1.30 in the morning and to ask me to make any statement one way or the other—that is quite impossible. I do not think it is reasonable.

Mr. Manuel: I am very sorry if I have been too hurried. I tried to put into practice what I thought was your Ruling earlier today.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite correct. The hon. Member has raised it at the earliest possible moment and it is without prejudice to anything I may decide tomorrow morning.

UTILITY PRAM RUGS ORDER

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RENTON:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 23rd February, 1951, entitled the Utility Pram Rugs (Manufacture and Supply) (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No. 303), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be annulled.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Renton.

Mr. Poole: On a point of Order. The Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) appeared there for the first time today. Seeing that the hon. Gentleman is in his place, is it not reasonable to suppose, having kept the Minister and


the permanent officials here until this hour of the morning, that he might at least do us the courtesy of moving his Motion? Is there not some way in which we can protect ourselves when a Member has got the Minister and his officials here, and yet does not dare to move his Motion?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not rise in his place, nor did he give any indication of when the Motion was to be taken. Nor did any of the other hon. Gentlemen whose names appear on the Order Paper say anything. May I suggest that the appropriate procedure would be for you to put the Question, having called the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman does not move his Motion. I did not call the names of the other hon. Gentlemen, but I will do so now. Mr. Charles Taylor, Mr. Colegate, Mr. Baker White, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth.

Mr. Renton: I should say that I consulted the learned Clerk at the Table about half an hour ago and said to him that in view of the lateness of the hour I did not propose to move this Prayer tonight, but that I wished to move it today, meaning Wednesday. I asked the learned Clerk if it was necessary for me to rise in my place when you called the Prayer, and I was informed that it was not necessary to do so but that he would call out "this day," as in fact he did.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think that it is necessary that a protest should be made against the discourteous treatment which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received. He has been here the whole of the evening waiting to answer the hon. Gentleman, and he has had no intimation at all, at any time, that it was not proposed to proceed with this Motion. I suggest that it would be in accordance with the courtesies of the House if the hon. Gentleman, when he acquainted the Clerk at the Table of his decision, had also informed my right hon. Friend or one of the Whips so that the appropriate steps could have been taken. I wish to make the strongest possible protest against this gross discourtesy.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I have a Ruling on the point of order which I endeavoured to raise, which was this. This Prayer appears second on the Order Paper. You, Sir, called it a moment ago and then asked the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) to speak to it, and he not having risen in his place, it is not competent for anyone else by saying "this day"—Wednesday instead of Tuesday—to defer the consideration of the Prayer. Apart altogether from that question, there is the question of courtesy to the House in the fact that the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary are here to answer it. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that a great many other Members of this House, on both sides, have been here for the purpose of arguing and if necessary dividing about this Prayer. May I respectfully submit that the proper procedure would be to put this Question to the vote.

Mr. Renton: I do not propose to deal with the first point, because I understand it is clearly covered by the rules of order that it is competent for any member to notify the Table of the withdrawal of a Motion or of its postponement. With regard to the suggestion of discourtesy on my part, may I say sincerely that no discourtesy was intended, but I do nevertheless wish to apologise to the President of the Board of Trade and to his Parliamentary Secretary, who I understood would probably be answering the Prayer, but I did not happen to see him. I did not know that the President of the Board of Trade would be intervening in this debate at all because the Order against which I am praying is in fact signed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I regret any inconvenience I may have caused to the right hon. Gentleman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thank you very much."] We must at this time of night be tolerant. The reason why I overlooked it was not due to any discourtesy, but simply because, being as tired as I dare say most hon. Members are, I forgot to do anything about it.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might answer the point of order. It is correct that it is within the rules, unless we amend them, that an hon. Member is entitled to give notice that he does not propose to pray against an Order. One can make objec-


tions if one wants to; but it is within the rules.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: If an hon. Member puts down a Prayer in association with other hon. Members and he comes to a decision not to proceed with it on the day for which it has been put down, is it not expected that the hon. Member should give you, Mr. Speaker, notice at the commencement of these proceedings on the Prayers instead of waiting until the Prayer is reached, to the inconvenience, not only of the Minister and the House, but of you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. As far as I am concerned the rules are there and I have to obey them. They may be inconvenient, but there they are and I have to obey—I cannot alter them.

Mr. Poole: I understand that although the Minister had 12 hours' notice of this Prayer and it has been withdrawn, it has now been put down for Wednesday. May I ask whether the Minister and the House are compelled to take this Prayer on Wednesday, even though it be extremely inconvenient to the Department concerned, or whether the Government have powers of discretion as to when these Prayers shall be debated?

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Is there any limit to the amount of time that this cat-and-mouse game can be played?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked whether any latitude can be given as to whether a Prayer should be put down on one day or another. That is an awkward question. My impression is that one puts down a Prayer for a certain night, but the Government have charge of business, and if that is an inconvenient night I believe they have the power to say, "We cannot give you tomorrow. We will give you the day after." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am not sure, but I think it is in the power of the Government to select the day.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With respect, Mr. Speaker, as you know, Prayers have to be put down within 40 days of the promulgation of an order, and if it were the case that the Government could postpone consideration, it would be open to the Government to

postpone it until after the 40 days had elapsed.

Mr. Speaker: That is not my point at all. I am assuming that there are 40 or 30 or even 20 days, and I should have thought that in that time—I am not clear about this—the Government might say "There are 20 days left. Tomorrow is not convenient, but the day after will be," and they would have some right to suggest what day would be convenient. To tell the honest truth, I am not clear; I do not want to make a Ruling, but that is my impression.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would you be prepared, Mr. Speaker, perhaps this afternoon, to give some indication to the House of what the procedure is, because this raises a very important House of Commons issue—important to both sides of the House—and it would be convenient to all of us to know exactly how the matter stands. Would you be ready to give an answer this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: I am not clear, but I thought that some latitude could be given in the way I have indicated. If not, I will find out in due course.

Mr. Renton: Arising out of the suggestion that this Prayer might be postponed, may I say that, speaking for myself, I had hardly dared to hope that the President of the Board of Trade himself would come and answer this Prayer. It gives the Prayer perhaps a greater importance than ever I anticipated, and I should be content if it is convenient to the right hon. Gentleman, that his Parliamentary Secretary should be here tonight instead.

Mr. Speaker: We had better get on with the next Prayer.

GAS (CONVERSION DATE)

1.42 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. This is a Prayer relating to the Gas (Conversion Date) (No. 25) Order, 1951, and its only purpose was to fix 5th February, 1951, as the date upon which certain securities were to be converted into Gas Stock under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Gas Act. That was its only purpose, and it is perfectly clear in, my submission, that the only possible subject for discussion is the date


of the conversion. The date of the conversion was six weeks ago. In those circumstances the annulment of this Order would be completely and entirely inoperative.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not argue about the Order on a point of order. After all, we must hear what the mover and seconder have to say. As far as I am concerned, this Order is in order and is correct. Otherwise, it would not be on the Order Paper. I cannot accept the argument that it is out of order because the hon. and learned Gentleman objects to it or has reasons against it. Let us hear the arguments, and then the hon. and learned Gentleman can make his speech.

Mr. Mitchison: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not so arguing. What I am saying is that this Order has done its work. It is completely finished. It operated on a date in February and there is nothing whatever left to annul. That is my point.

Mr. Speaker: That is surely a question for a Ruling by the Chair in debate. If the mover or seconder go outside what the Chair considers in order, then they can be pulled up. That is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, surely.

Mr. Mitchison: With respect, it is not a question of debate. It is on the face of the Order. It is perfectly clear that the Order fixed a conversion date some time ago. The whole operation of the Order is already passed, and we surely cannot discuss the annulment of something which has already become fully and completely operative.

Mr. Speaker: That may be so. There are three Prayers down on the Order Paper tonight. There were seven the other night. I am sorry, but I cannot be expected to know all the details of all the Prayers, and I must have a little opportunity to consider them when they are moved. I do my best; that is all I can say. Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.

1.46 a.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 31st January, 1951, entitled the Gas (Conversion Date) (No. 25) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951,

No. 160), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be annulled.
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply. My intention was to have the Prayer down for tomorrow and not for tonight. In view of the point of order raised, I maintain it is in order to refer both to the Second Schedule of the Gas Act and to whatever has been published in the Press as a result of the application of that Second Schedule and this Order. I hope I shall be allowed to speak on that basis. This Order was made on 31st January, laid before Parliament on 2nd February and came into operation on 5th February. The date, so far as it affected the citizens of this country, was 5th February.

Mrs. Mann: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said he is going to speak on the effects of the Order. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think so. Maybe the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to say that because of its effects, this Order ought not to be approved by the House and ought to be annulled.

Mr. George Porter: Before, you took the Chair, Sir, a question was raised with Mr. Speaker in regard to the Order, which has reference only to something that took place on 5th February. Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to refer to the effects of the Order?

Mr. Butcher: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman who wishes to move this Prayer is entitled to show that the damage and injury caused to His Majesty's subjects since the date the Order came into force is so severe that it must be immediately curtailed and that he is entitled to pray against it.

Mr. Mitchison: That is just what he is not entitled to do, in my opinion. This is an Order made under the Second Schedule of the Gas Act and its one purpose, in accordance with paragraph I (2) of Part II of that Second Schedule, is to fix the date for the conversion of certain securities. That is the one and only purpose of this Order. The hon. and gallant Member opposite may think it is a good or a bad conversion and that His Majesty's subjects have suffered benefit or


damage by it, but all that has nothing whatever to do with this Order, which is concerned purely with the fixing of the date. More than that, the date was fixed. It was over a month ago. Events to happen at that time have already happened. If this Order were to be annulled tonight, it would not make a penny difference to anybody, because the matter has already been fully operative. The hon. and gallant Member who is moving cannot talk about the effects of the Order. Even if the date were a future one, he could talk only about the date. As it is, he can make no relevant remarks, because this Motion is, in its very nature, a complete absurdity, and nothing he can say can be more absurd that the absurdity of the Motion which he is moving.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. and learned Member to suggest, quite wrongly, that my remarks cannot be relevant? Secondly, as this Order sets out the values of the shares taken over, and which are enumerated——

Mr. Mitchison: It does nothing of the sort.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Surely it is in order to deal with them in this Prayer, otherwise the Prayer has no meaning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Perhaps I may now be permitted to give a Ruling. In my view, the subject matters for debate are questions relating to the conversion date, and nothing more. In regard to the second point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am of opinion that it is competent to annul the Order whether it has come into force Or not, and then if that occurred it might be—and I do not know—for the Government to bring in an Order fixing another date. Therefore, in my view the first contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, and the second point incorrect.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to press the matter, but surely if this Order is annulled the stock has already been converted into gas stock. It is not merely a question of issuing another Order; the effect of this Order cannot be undone now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given a Ruling, and that we must now proceed with the Debate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry to pursue this matter, but if one looks at paragraph I, one will see sums payable under Part II of the Gas Act. If one looks at Part II of the Gas Act, one will see that it is laid down that whether certain shares are not immediately convertible at the rates prevailing on the Stock Exchange, then a separate procedure is to take place. Very largely, the procedure is that the shares shall be valued at the nearest figure to the shares corresponding in Stock Exchange values. I submit that it is perfectly in order under this Order, with that reference, that when one is going to consider the shares-set out in the Schedule, one should be able to make reference to Part II of the Gas Act in order to see whether this particular conversion date, and the terms, set out within it, are correct. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow me to proceed on that basis.
I am sorry that I was interrupted at the first point I wished to make. That point is, that here is an Order which was made on 31st January, laid before Parliament on 2nd February, and brought into operation on 5th February. There was not a single notice in the Press of any nature to show what was the purport of this Order until 5th February. In other words, once again the Ministry had used this method of an Order, blanketed all opposition, made its decision and promulgated it as something which had been already achieved. I think that is very wrong.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. and gallant Member give way?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No, I shall not.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it open to the hon. and gallant Member, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this Motion, to allege that the Government have not carried out their statutory duty under Part II of the Gas Act, which is to fix a conversion date as soon as conveniently may be after the compensation has been determined?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was doing that. What he is doing is raising the point of whether adequate time or publicity had been given before the Order came into force. That seems to be perfectly in order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I submit to you, Sir, that this Order does, in fact, only deal with the date. The Act lays down the machinery which shall operate in relation to the conversion prices. That having been done in accordance with the Act, this Order only deals with the date and it is only the date, therefore, that is before the House.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne) rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. There are a number of quite unnecessary points of order being put. I fully understand what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is moving the Motion, was on a different point altogether, namely, that adequate time, in his submission to the House, had not been given. That seems to me to be proper for the consideration of the House, and to be relevant to that date.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If I may be allowed to raise two matters on these points of order, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied that he is fulfilling the terms of the Gas Act by producing an Order like this, in which there is no differentiation between the time it comes into force and the time it is published in the Press. I want to ask him something else. He produced this Order. Then it is quoted in the Press with all the details of what it entails. I want to put this to you, Sir. It seems quite intolerable for the Parliamentary Secretary to say we can only discuss exactly what is in this Order when he himself uses this Order in the Press to do something quite different. Therefore, I suggest that he must either be prepared to accept that he can only use this Order in the Press as a date, or he must allow us to discuss tonight what he used this Order to do himself. He may say no and you, Sir, may say no.

Mr. Robens: A Press announcement is not an Order that is before this House.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No, that I agree with, but a Press announcement made by virtue of this Order is before this House.

Mr. Robens: No, it is not.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If it is not, then I am going to say this. It seems to

me again another reason why we should look at this matter very carefully. If, in fact, the Minister of Fuel and Power is now able to use the powers taken under an order which apparently refers only to a date, in order to make a great many other decisions, we must look at this Order much more carefully, together with the powers given to the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Robens: The powers given to the Minister of Fuel and Power have been conferred upon him by this House and they are now in the Gas Act. He has conducted his affairs strictly in accordance with the Act and this Order arises from that, not merely from fixing the date.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I entirely disagree. If the Minister will look at the Gas Act—and we had a considerable time arguing that Act on both sides of the House—he will see it lays down that the shares which cannot be taken over at Stock Exchange values have to be settled by reference to Stock Exchange values.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That question is certainly not discussable. The only question discussable, apart from the incidental matters mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is the question of the date, but certainly nothing regarding the values of the securities concerned.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I suggest to you, Sir, that the companies in the Schedule which are listed as being referred to at this date, are subject to be discussed on this occasion? I think that would be true. I think it would be right to ask the Minister, for instance, when he takes the Bath Company 4 per cent. perpetual debenture stock, why he has fixed the date on whatever the date is. May I ask why he has fixed it and on what basis? How has he arrived at that date? The Bath Company and the Nuneaton Gas Company are both covered in this Order yet with similar stocks he has taken one at 103 per cent. and the other at 135 per cent. How on earth can he justify this differentiation?

Mr. Robens: With great respect, I submit that this is entirely out of order in view of the fact that the Gas Act lays down that the prices of these stocks shall be decided between the Minister and the stockholders' representatives. Failing


agreement, it will go to arbitration. All those in this Order have been settled in accordance with the Act and none has gone to arbitration. The prices have been arranged between the Minister and the stockholders' representatives in accordance with the Act, and therefore there can be no discussion in this House on those prices, but only on the date.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already indicated to the hon. and gallant Member that it was not permissible to discuss on this Order either the mode of taking over or the prices of these securities, and I must ask him not to proceed on those lines.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: With great respect, I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the Gas Act, and we made it clear that where there were stocks which were not on the Stock Exchange they would be subject to an order of this type, and I submit that here is an Order dealing with these stocks. Unless we are allowed to talk about these matters. I think the whole of the Gas Act in this relation is inoperable, and I ask your guidance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My guidance has already been given, namely, that the matter for discussion is the conversion date, and nothing other than that.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Then may I ask your guidance as to whether we are allowed to ask when the date was fixed and on what basis it was fixed for any particular share? I want to know. Here we have a lot of shares listed for conversion on this date and I want to know on what basis that has been done. I hope it is in order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power what acceptances he has had from the companies, the stockholders' representatives and so on. To make this Order he must have had acceptances.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to go on arguing and re-arguing a point of order on which you have already clearly ruled?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the Chair must be allowed to exercise its discretion.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This is only one of many orders we shall have. It is very late in the morning——

Mrs. Jean Mann: The hon. and gallant Member should worry about that.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope we shall get an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary on when he fixed the date for the conversion and what negotiations he had had which led him to believe that, in the case of the Nuneaton Gas Company, the 5½ per cent. irredeemable debentures should be taken over at this date at a lesser rate than the 4 per cent. redeemable debentures. The hon. Gentleman does not know.

Mr. Robens: It is not that I do not know. It has nothing whatever to do with this Order.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman has said time and time again, and his colleagues have supported him, that he fixed this conversion date because he has fulfilled the Gas Act. If he has, fulfilled the Gas Act he knows when these shares were taken over and at what price. But he does not know and does, not care.

Mr. Robens: Mr. Robens rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should be obliged if the Minister would be good enough to leave these matters to the Chair. There is no point in his intervening so frequently. I would say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he cannot go into the details of the price, or anything of that sort, at which these undertakings were taken over. He must confine himself strictly to the date.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I thought I was within your Ruling, Sir. If I am not, I apologise. I thought I was in order in saying that, because this date had been fixed, because these shares had been taken over, the Minister must know why the date was possible. If it is not in order, I confine myself to the simple question, Why was this date fixed? I would tell hon. Members opposite that it is not nearly as easy as that. If the Minister is to be honest he will have to tell us that. But I suppose he will not, because we always find on these Prayers that the Ministry of Fuel and Power will evade an issue if they possibly can.
I am sorry I have been so long but I ask the Minister two simple questions. First, will he say why this Order came into operation before any single interpretation of the Order was published in


the Press? Second, on what basis did these negotiations take place in order to enable him to fix this date? Will he say that in every single case the negotiations which enabled him to fix the date were equitable to the people concerned? If he would give this assurance I should myself be satisfied.

2.7 a.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter tonight. [Interruption.] An hon. Member asks me to take my hand out of my pocket. I would certainly do so if hon. Members opposite would stop interrupting for five minutes. As I said, I think my hon. and gallant Friend deserves every credit for raising this matter tonight, because the shareholders of these concerns which have been taken over are not great capitalists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] They are small people, and it is right—without ribaldry and laughter and continuous interruption from the other side of the House—that these matters should be considered by this House. This Order has been produced, and we have every right to put down a Prayer for its annulment if we disagree with it—which we do. I do feel that my hon. and gallant Friend should have been given a little more consideration when he was making his case, which obviously the other side do not understand, and do not wish to understand.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of order. Are not these remarks a reflection on the Chair and out of order?

Mr. Taylor: With those few words, and ignoring that last interruption, I beg to second the Prayer.

2.10 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): This is the twenty-fifth Order of this kind which has been laid before the House, each of which has had a schedule covering certain securities. In accordance with the Gas Act, the Minister and the stockholders' representatives agree on prices. Having done so, the Minister then issues an Order and fixes the date. In the case of the undertakings mentioned in the schedule full agreement was reached with the stockholders' repre-

sentatives as to prices, and the date, 5th February, was the most convenient to all concerned.

2.11 a.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Parliamentary Secretary was allowed to make a big point that the stockholders' representatives have agreed these prices. You, Sir, refused to allow me to say anything about prices at all. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, am I in order, in exercising my right of reply, to touch on the points he has dealt with?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has the right of reply, but I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to prices contradicted my Ruling in any way. In general terms he answered the questions addressed to him on the basis, grounds, and reasons on which the date had been fixed.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the stockholders' representatives had agreed with the Ministry the prices for these shares, and that consequently a date had been fixed. Am I in order to talk about prices? If not, may I ask why the Parliamentary Secretary can make a statement that certain prices have been agreed, and I am not allowed to comment on those prices?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has no right to ask me for the grounds on which I give a Ruling of that kind. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly in order, and he did not in any form discuss the detailed prices of the stock. He discussed the basis, grounds, and reasons on which a date had been fixed, and that is all.

2.13 a.m.

Mr. John Foster: The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt very closely with the point of the Motion.

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. As the mover of the Prayer has replied, is it in order to continue the discussion?

Mr. Foster: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the price was fixed, and the date was fixed as soon as it was convenient to everyone. The Second Schedule to the Gas Act of 1948, under


which this Order is made, states that the date shall be fixed
as conveniently as may be after the compensation payable in respect of those securities has been determined.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted the important words "as soon as conveniently." He should be very careful how he expresses himself at this hour of the night.

Mr. Foster: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. My point is that this date has not been made "as soon as conveniently may be." I submit that the Act envisaged an Order being made for each security. Obviously the date cannot be convenient to a different lot of securities. If you have six securities there is a convenient day which will be a different date for each security.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman in that case would explain why the Act used the plural when it could perfectly well have used the singular?

Mr. Foster: It uses the plural because it is a distributive plural. Quite obviously it is related to a number of securities when it then says:
Such date may be specified as is convenient in respect of those securities.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, first, how he could reconcile one date being the most convenient for a whole number of securities. That obviously cannot be so unless it is by accident. That brings me to the second point—he has not explained why it is the most convenient, and I think he has treated the House a little cavalierly in just coming down here and saying this is the most convenient date. Why is it the most convenient date? [Interruption.]

Mr Mitchison: Why not?

Mr. Foster: The hon. and learned Member nods and says "Why not?" It is not for the Opposition to know why the date of 5th February is the most convenient date. The statutory duty which is laid on the Minister is to have a date which is "as soon as convenient," and I want him to tell the House why it was "as soon as convenient" on that date, and why was not 4th February or 3rd February just as convenient? He said it was convenient to all concerned. He did not say who was concerned and why it was convenient to them. If it is everybody concerned we want to know to which

of them 5th February was convenient and whether he took the majority view, or whether he decided that the Minister's view should ride rough-shod over the others.
The date has to be "as soon as convenient," and it means in my submission that it is "as soon as convenient" in respect of each of these securities. It probably was due to the fact that this Schedule was not properly discussed in the Gas Act, which was rushed through in Committee. If I remember rightly, the Guillotine fell on it with the result that the Act probably did envisage a separate Order in Council for each of the securities, so that the convenient date could be found for each of them. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why he considers that the date for a number of securities is convenient for each of them, and if he can tell us that could he go on and tell us why the convenience of all persons was met on 5th February.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Could we have a short answer from the Parliamentary Secretary? Would he mind telling us whether it might not have been possible to work out the terms of compensation earlier and made this date earlier than in fact it has been made in the Order, because it is a material point from the point of view of compensation considering that there has been a fall of some 10 per cent. in the value of gas stock during the last year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that question can affect the conversion date.

Question put, and negatived.

CIVIL AVIATION, AFRICA

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

2.21 a.m.

Mr. John Grimston: After 12 hours of acute party controversy it is pleasant, even at this late hour, to turn to a subject on which there will be a considerable amount of agreement on both sides. I want to put a number of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, for the most of which I have given prior notice, in order to find out the intentions of the Ministry in so far as they are


responsible for a number of matters connected with civil aviation in Africa. Africa will only be fully developed by the use of aeroplanes as a means of transport. It is the rule, rather than the exception, in Africa for people to move by air.
I wish to ask the intentions of the Ministry in regard to the trunk aerodromes. It has been announced that the Comet aircraft will go into service fairly soon, but we all know that the aerodromes it will have to use are quite insufficient. It is imperative, if the aeroplane is to be operated, that either new aerodromes should be made available or that the existing ones should be lengthened. Is the Comet to fly down the Nile route, or down the Hermes route of Nigeria and across the Sahara? If it is to fly down the Nile route a number of aerodromes will need attention, and I should like to know what the intentions are in regard to them.
Khartoum has a runway of less than 2,000 yards and is wholly insufficient for handling the Comet. The second is Nairobi, which is 5,000 feet above sea-level and has a runway of 2,600 yards and is also quite incapable of handling the Comet. Then there is Salisbury, which is known to be insufficient, having a runway of 1,600 yards and being 5,000 feet above sea-level. I want to know, first the route which the Comet is expected to fly, and, secondly, what is being done to provide it with suitable aerodromes.
Next I should like to know about the decision to abandon the Princess flying boat which was to have flown this route and which we are now told has been withdrawn from that project. Has money been spent on the projected base to handle the Princess at Lagos? There are other projected bases at Stanley Pool and another at Vaaldam near Johannesburg. Has any money been spent on those, and has that money to be written off?
My next point relates to radio communications. These are extremely sketchy, particularly throughout Central Africa. I think a good deal of use could be made of the men who handle the radio services connected with aircraft. They could be used in between whiles to supplement the extremely poor communications which exist in a north-south direction down Africa. It seems to me that if the radio

services were better staffed than they are we could expect to use these men in their free time to supplement the very poor communications. It is almost impossible to send a telegram from north to south at the moment without it going down by the sea and then inland again—a very slow operation.
My next point concerns navigational aids. The standard navigational aid in Africa is a beacon to which an aeroplane can fly. That in normal times is an extremely easy and simple way of finding one's way about, but if the airborne instrument goes wrong there is no means whatever at the moment whereby a ground station can find an aircraft. That is a very important service which can be performed in every other country in the world, but it cannot be performed in Africa. Anywhere in the thousand miles between Khartoum and Nairobi one is entirely out of touch with the ground if one's instrument goes wrong. In my view, the V.H.F./D.F. or one of those similar systems should be installed for emergency use only on all the main aerodromes and even 300 or 400 miles down that route.
Another point is that these beacons to which aeroplanes can fly are very simple and cheap to operate, and it would not be at all difficult to get amateurs to set them up and operate them by themselves. For example, at N'Changa there is an ex-R.A.F. man who himself runs a radio service as a hobby. I know he would be delighted to operate a beacon of this kind. The equipment would only be an obsolete R.A.F. wireless set, and this equipment could be simply and cheaply installed there and at a number of other places, thus greatly adding to the information available, particularly to hundreds of small aircraft as they fly over the area.
In connection with the need for V.H.F./D.F. or some similar service to enable people on the ground to find aircraft, I would mention that on the recent exhibition tour of one of our latest aircraft, the Miles Marathon, the crew, who were extremely experienced, found themselves above cloud over Africa and completely out of touch with the ground. They were unable to locate their position in any way. Their petrol was getting low, and they got to a point where they sent out an S.O.S. as they came through the cloud without knowing what they were going to hit. That could happen to


any aeroplane, and it could be overcome by providing emergency direction finding systems. The range of the ordinary high frequency radio is extremely good in Africa, because of the favourable atmospheric conditions, and I think a good deal of use could be made of that type.
Finally, can the Minister use his influence, particularly with bodies such as the Colonial Development Corporation, to see that the aerodromes they lay down for their projects are suitable for British types of aircraft. I tried to land at one of the Colonial Development Corporation projects at Chinteche and found the aerodrome there totally unsuitable for common British types, but suitable for American. The result is that American light aircraft are having a tremendous vogue in Africa and we are not developing in this country the bush light aircraft for which there will be an increasing demand in Africa and which we are well able to produce. If the aerodromes were furnished with 1,000-yard runways and reinforced surfaces, so that British aircraft could use them, I think British manufacturers would be able to get an increasing share of a market which they are at the moment losing to the Americans.
I have cut my remarks short to give the Minister a chance to reply. I put them forward in no unfriendly spirit. All parties agree that the development of Africa must go ahead, and there is no doubt that the aeroplane is going to play a tremendous part in that development. Let us see that the facilities provided on the ground for those who use the air provide the maximum amount of safety for passengers and encourage the use of British aircraft wherever possible.

2.32 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): I should like to say how much I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind gesture in saying at 2.30 a.m. that he will make it possible for the Minister to get away early. I agree with him about the importance of the subject which he has raised and that the development of Africa is vitally important not only to the Africans and to us, but to the whole world. In that development air transport is going to play an important part. It is a very big subject for a short Adjournment, and he will excuse me if I run rather quickly through the catalogue of points he raised.
The first is that of aerodromes. It is important to appreciate that the United Kingdom Government does not have over-riding authority to decide the development of aerodromes or, indeed, the provision of any other ground facilities in African territory. That responsibility rests with the local authorities, whether Commonwealth, Colonial or a caretaker administration for ex-enemy territories, as in the case of Tripolitania. What the United Kingdom can do, and does, is to make known the needs of United Kingdom operators to the authorities who are responsible and so far as possible these needs are met in common with those of the operators of other countries. We are prepared to consult with and advise any local administration on the numerous technical problems.
Where the cost of the facilities provided would be out of all proportion to the Territory's interest in the passage of international air services through its territory, the United Kingdom Government are prepared to contribute towards the cost, but the final decision on what is to be done, nevertheless, must remain a matter for the decision of the local government. Since 1945 much has been done to define in detail what ground facilities are needed in Africa for immediate needs and for the long-term future.
On an international basis, a comprehensive network of ground facilities was worked out and agreed at the Africa-Indian Ocean Regional meeting in London in 1949, under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The United Kingdom and the Colonial Governments took a prominent part, and we kept in mind the concerns of B.O.A.C., and of the colonial operators, such as the East African Airways, the Central African Airways, and others. Much work is also done informally, but I should like to mention a special meeting of the Southern African Air Transport Council which took place at Nairobi, a few weeks ago. This is a council which has enabled representatives of the Union of South Africa, and of the colonial governments in Africa, to meet representatives of the U.K. to discuss matters of common interest and to resolve difficulties.
With regard to the aerodromes which the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned, and of which he was good


enough to give me some prior notice, they have often been discussed between interested governments. We have made our views known and decisions have been taken which are generally satisfactory to us. Castel Benito in Tripolitania is adequate for current operations, and the future of this aerodrome is bound up with the emergence of the United Libya which is expected next year. About Khartoum, agreement has been reached for lengthening the runway. This should be completed by the summer of 1952, and should be adequate for all aircraft in service at present. Further extension of this runway would be extremely difficult owing to the proximity of the railway.
At Nairobi, the aerodrome is regarded as adequate for current aircraft, but there again, altitude may penalise jet engined machines. Arrangements for overcoming this difficulty, without incurring disproportionate costs, are now under consideration with the local authorities. At Entebbe, work on the second runway is under way, and this runway ought to meet all foreseeable requirements. The Tanganyika Government have recently announced plans for development of Dar-es-Salaam. At Livingstone, where a new aerodrome was opened by my noble Frieind last August, the aerodrome is equipped to a very high standard, and the Northern Rhodesian Government have spared no effort to make it satisfactory. At Salisbury I understand that the Southern Rhodesian Government have plans for a new aerodrome. The existing one is in some respects unsatisfactory. At Johannesburg, for aircraft types which are now coming along, the Union of South Africa is building a new airport to be named after the great statesman, Jan Smuts.
As to the use of the Comet, B.O.A.C., have announced that they intend to use it on their South African services, but it would not be in their commercial interest to give advance information to their competitors about detailed routeing. They will continue in partnership with South African Airways, and their plans must be subject to the views of their partners. As a result of extensive operational trials of the Comet, which are to be held throughout this year, I hope that the two Commonwealth countries will be able

to settle plans for the service in more detail.
I was asked about the decision not to operate the Princess flying boat, and whether that decision was final. Finality in aviation seems to me to be something of a relative term, but I can see no prospect of these flying boats operating on commercial services on this route. Nor, indeed, was there ever any firm decision that they would. The possibility was considered, but this consideration was only exploratory and, as far as I am advised, no expenditure did take place either at Vaaldam or at Lagos.
As far as feeder aerodromes are concerned, that is entirely a matter for the Colonial Governments to decide and I am not able to discuss individual cases. I did try to identify Chinteche but neither we nor the Colonial Office could track it down. In view of what has since been said, I shall have another look at it and see if we can bring to the notice of the people concerned what the hon. Member has said.
As far as communications go, I must reiterate that the direct responsibility rests with the local governments and not with the United Kingdom. I do agree, and it is generally recognised, that there is room for improvement both in commercial and aeronautical telecommunications. We have made a good deal of progress since the war and as far as the British territories are concerned, the United Kingdom is assisting, through the Colonial Development and Welfare Telecommunications Fund, and grants are also made by my Department in respect of those countries in which we have trunk route interests. As far as omni-directional beacons are concerned, I agree there is scope for their increased use and further installations have been planned and agreed as to sitings on an international basis.
We have taken account internationally, when fixing these sites, of the needs of the operators and of possible feeder services. There is, of course, the limiting factor of equipment and availability of radio frequencies. It is also possible that a number of low-power beacons will be installed in addition to those recommended by the international scheme. I would also add that we propose to fulfil the I.C.A.O. recommendations as far as V.H.F./D.F. is concerned.
I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman said that H.F./D.F. may have some advantage. We shall not be installing new H.F. facilities, but a number of installations in use will remain available for some further time and certainly until we are able to complete the new system. I might say that if there are any individual problems the hon. Gentleman would like to deal with in more detail, I would be grateful to him if he would write to me or speak to me about it afterwards, and perhaps I could let him have some further details.
Bearing in mind his desire that the House should have an early evening off, I would just end by saying that I hope he will agree with me that putting down plans throughout Africa is no easy

matter. There are all kinds of problems involved and I feel our people have done a very good job in providing the installations that are now in use. A good deal has been done but much remains to be done and I firmly believe we shall make progress as far as the limitations of equipment allow us. As for the rest, I am pleased the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter in the House. It will help to keep up interest and I am sure that all those concerned will read what he has had to say in HANSARD, not tomorrow but the day after.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Three o'Clock a.m.